1951-03-08

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
*4

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 8, 1951


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege and admiration, may I say that never in the last fifty years has there been a House of Commons which had among its membership so many outstanding athletes as has this one. We have a champion wrestler, a rugby champion, a soccer champion, champion curler and champion tennis player. My question of privilege is that we in this house have a champion boxer, champion rugby and champion hockey and lacrosse player in the person of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Conacher). He is hailed across Canada as the greatest athlete of our time.


Mr. Lionel Conacher (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, it was very kind of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) to bring to the attention of the house the fact that I was awarded this mythical title covering the last fifty years in sport. I should like also at this time to thank the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Dechene) for his kind remarks on my behalf the other day.
I realize that this house has before it too many important problems to be concerned with such matters as this. However, I should like to say that I believe that sport has its proper place in our way of life, and. that, while overdone in many instances, it has served a useful purpose, particularly among the younger generation, as it helps them to develop their bodies; and a healthy body, I am sure we all agree, develops a healthy mind.
I should like to say that in the last fifty years I have played with and against many great teams; and on more occasions than one I was in the position of either starting or helping to stop the attack. In my present position in this house I have been relegated to the bench, in a sense; but I feel quite satisfied with this position on such a fine team as we have here, which is quite capable of carrying the heavy burden placed on its shoulders in these trying days.
I should like to thank the house for bearing with me in the time I have taken in acknowledging the kind remarks of the hon. member for Fort William.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table the French translation of correspondence between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) and provincial premiers, of which the English version was placed on the table on March 6.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved:: That the name of Mr. Campney be substituted for that of Mr. Winkler on the select standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
July 31, 1954
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 130 (from the Senate) to amend the Export and Import Permits Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Argue:: 1.	On how many farmers, by provinces, have exchequer court writs been served following non-payment of income tax in each year from 1940-1850 inclusive, and what was the total amount involved, by provinces, and by years, in the exchequer court writs referred to in this question?
2.	What was. the value of farm property sold for non-payment of income tax at sheriff's sale or by any other means, by provinces, in each year from 194ftito9l99D[inetauiTeTHoiri w tol bus asanivoiq
l.augiA .'iMl

Questions


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Information is not available of the number of farmers, by provinces, upon whom exchequer court writs have been served following non-payment of income tax, or the total amount involved by provinces.
2.	Information is not available on the value of property sold for non-payment of income tax.



CANADIAN FORCES


Mr. Nowlan:: 1.	Are moneys withheld or deductions made from the subsistence allowances of members of the armed forces of Canada occupying homes situated on army camps, naval establishments, or air force stations?
2.	If so, has there been any increase in the amounts so withheld or deducted?
3.	If there has been an increase in the amounts so withheld or deducted, when did they become effective, and what was the amount of such increases for each of the respective ranks of (a) the navy; (b) the army; (c) the air force?


Mr. Blanchelie:: 1.	No. Members of the armed forces occupying permanent and temporary married quarters situated in army camps, naval establishments or air force stations and provided with rations, are not entitled to subsistence allowance and therefore no moneys are withheld nor are deductions made in these cases. The subsistence allowance is not intended to represent the actual cost of quarters and rations outside of service establishments but is considered in the nature of an allowance in lieu. Subsistence allowance is paid only to those members of the armed forces for whom rations and quarters are not provided.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.



HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS-PAYMENTS FOR OLD AGE PENSIONS AND PENSIONS TO THE BLIND

Mr. Catherwood:: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid to provinces for hospital construction in the years 1949-50?
2.	What was the total amount of money paid in old age pensions in the years 1949-50?
3.	What was the total amount of money paid in pensions for the blind in the years 1949-50?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Fiscal year 1949-50, $6,803,858.75.
Amounts expended under the national health grants program represent only payment by the Department of National Health and Welfare to the provinces of claims submitted by them covering accounts (properly audited) which have been paid by the provinces and for which they are entitled

to be reimbursed. Expenditures by the Department of National Health and Welfare do not in any way represent the amounts actually spent by the provinces on projects for which approval has been given by the department. In the case of the hospital construction grant, claims by the provinces in respect of approved projects are submitted in four instalments, namely, upon completion 25 per cent, 50 per cent, 75 per cent and 100 per cent of construction. The period of construction of nearly all projects extends over one or more fiscal years.
2.	Fiscal year 1949-50, $119,535,530.31.
3.	Fiscal year 1949-50, $4,715,466.17.
Note re 2 and 3 above:	Amounts shown
cover pensions paid (both the federal share of 75 per cent and the provincial share of 25 per cent) under the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act but do not include provincial supplemental allowances.



COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY ASSISTANT GRAIN COMMISSIONER, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Wright:: 1.	From what points and on what dates were written complaints received in the office of the assistant grain commissioner in the province of Saskatchewan, between August 1, 1949, and February 1, 1951?
2.	On what dates were they investigated?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: 1 and 2. Written complaints received in office of assistant commissioner for Saskatchewan, August 1, 1949, to February 1, 1951, from the following points:
Tadmore, received October 3, 1949, investigated October 5-6, 1949.
Waldheim, received October 21, 1949, investigated October 22, 1949.
Cavell, received October 22, 1949, investigated November 8, 1949.
Fairy Glen, received November 8, 1949, investigated November 14, 1949.
Elkhorn, received November 21,	1949,
investigated December 1-2, 1949.
Moosomin, received November 28, 1949, investigated November 30, 1949.
Meath Park, received December 13, 1949, investigated January 5, 1950.
Tisdale, received July 24, 1950, investigated August 9, 1950.
Meacham, received September 16, 1950, investigated September 23, 1950.
Lockwood, received September 25, 1950, investigated September 25-26, 1950.
Moose Jaw, received October 7, 1950, investigated October 21 and November 2, 1950.
Aberdeen, received October 11, 1950, investigated October 13, 1950.

Fillmore, received October 19, 1950, investigated October 20, 1950.
Rosthern, received October 21, 1950, investigated October 29, November 3 and November 17, 1950.
Fortune, received November 6,	1950,
investigated November 27 and December 1, 1950.
Canora, received November 14, 1950, investigated November 18, 1950.
Lockwood, received November 20, 1950, investigated November 24, 1950.
Alvena, received November 2l, 1950, investigated November 28, 1950.
Mikado, received December 11, 1950, investigated December 15-16, 1950, January 5 and February 8, 1951.
Amsterdam, received January 20, 1951, investigated January 20-30, 1951.
This is an increase of four over the number previously reported on page 451 of Hansard.



COMMONWEALTH DEFENCE CONFERENCE

Mr. Higgins:: Is there to be a commonwealth defence conference in London in May to discuss (a) Middle East defence; (b) increase in armament production; (c) the guarding of supply lines; (d) Pacific pact?


Mr. Lesage:: The government has received no invitation to such a conference.



VISIT OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE TO UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Did the Minister of Agriculture make a visit to the United Kingdom in February, 1951?
2.	If so, what was the purpose or purposes of this visit and what was the result of same?
3.	Did the Minister of Agriculture take with him on this visit any official government documents or proposals relating to the purposes of his visit?
4.	If so, what was the nature of such documents or proposals?
5.	Has the government at any time since June 5, 1950, made any statement contrary to the position taken on that date by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to the final settlement of the "have regard to" clause?
6.	If so, in what manner, when, and by whom was any such statement made?


Mr. St. Laurent:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The purpose and the result have already been announced.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The government has taken the position that while there was no further obligation on the United Kingdom in a legal sense, the United Kingdom authorities should realize that the wheat growers of Canada and most of the community of the prairie provinces
80709-66J
Questions
believed there was a continuing obligation under the "have regard to" clause which had not been discharged.
6.	Such representations were made by the Prime Minister in January and by the Minister of Agriculture in February, 1951.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Murphy:: 1.	Did any department of the government obtain a building on Christiana street, Sarnia, Ontario, within the last year?
2.	If so, was it by rental or purchase?
3.	If by rental, for what period, and on what rental basis?
4.	Did the government deal with or through a realtor either as agent for the government or as agent for the owner?
5.	If so, what is the name of the realtor or agent?



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister):	Mr. Speaker, on February 27 the
hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked me whether assurances have been given to the men in the public service that if they enlist they will be protected so far as superannuation and seniority are concerned upon their return from war service. I replied that I would take the question as a notice and get the precise information with proper references to the measures effective.
So far as superannuation is concerned, order in council P.C. 5412, of November 8, 1950, passed under the provisions of the Canadian Forces Act, 1950, states in section 6 that;
Subsections 4 and 7 of section 7A of the Civil Service Superannuation Act apply to and In respect of every person who is enrolled for the purpose of serving in the special force, and every officer and man of the reserve forces serving on the strength of the special force, as though his service on the strength of the special force were service in the forces during world war II within the meaning of that act.
The subsections of the Civil Service Superannuation Act referred to provided that when a contributor was absent on leave from the civil service during the second world war, that period would be counted as service for the purpose of computing allowances or gratuities under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and if a contributor underwent treatment in a hospital operated under the authority of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the period involved should be deemed as one on which he was on full-time active
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry .service with the forces. So that this, for the duration of the order in council, takes care of the superannuation matter.
As far as seniority is concerned, by virtue of P.C. 28/4244 of 31st August 1950, passed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, permanent members of the public service, and temporary employees who have qualified by examination for the position which they occupied at the date of enlistment, or who have not qualified by examination for the position which they held at enlistment but who as veterans have been continuously employed since January 1, 1948, or who have not qualified by examination but have been continuously employed since January 1, 1945, are treated as being on leave of absence without pay from a civil position for the period during which they are enlisted or enrolled for service with the Canadian Army special force, but the civil service commission is arranging the proper recommendations to have the same provision apply to members of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
As hon. members are aware, these orders in council would be effective only up to the end of this session; but there is on the order paper a resolution to provide statutory enactments to replace the orders in council, and to have the proper provision made by parliament to take care of the matters to which the hon. member's question refers.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Caiherwood (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the wool purchasing agency which has been set up under the Canadian Commercial Corporation in operation as yet? Is it the intention of this agency to purchase raw wool only from sources outside this country so that it can be processed in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to the first
question is yes. A committee has been appointed to buy raw wool to meet the requirements of the Canadian armed services.
The answer to the second question is that all processing will be done in Canada, with the exception of combed wool tops, which will be partly finished in this country. Our capacity for combed wool tops is not sufficient to meet the expected demand, but wool tops will be processed here to the extent that Canadian production will permit.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, on March 5, as reported in Hansard at page 895, the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Cardiff) asked whether the postmasters who are not civil servants will receive the same proposed increase in salary benefits as those who are civil servants, and if so, when they may expect to receive it.
I replied at that time by stating that I would take the hon. member's question as a notice. My reply today is that postmasters of this category are civil servants in the general meaning of the term. They too will get the benefit of the salary increase as of December 1, at the same rate as others. The date of the receipt of the increase will depend upon the action taken by parliament.


Mr. Graydon:: Will that apply to the rural mail carriers too?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: No.


Gordon Graydon: Why are they always left
out?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: They are not
employees of the Postmaster General's department.


Gordon Graydon: They do not get enough
money, either.



LETTER CARRIERS-REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORT AS TO STATEMENT OF DEPUTY POSTMASTER GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworihy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether a report in yesterday's press stating that the deputy postmaster general had said that the trouble in Toronto in connection with letter carriers was communist-inspired has come to his attention, and if so, whether he cares to make a statement.


Hon. Edouard Rinfrel (Postmaster General):: I saw that report in the press and I discussed it with the deputy postmaster general. He has denied having made any such statement.



PASSAMAQUODDY TIDAL PROJECT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has

the international joint commission made a report in connection with the proposed Passamaquoddy project?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In reply to the hon. member for Charlotte I would say that the international joint commission made its report to the two governments on October 23, 1950, recommending that a further investigation would be necessary to enable it to make recommendations concerning the feasibility of the Passamaquoddy project, and has estimated that such an investigation would cost $3,900,000. The report suggests that the cost might be apportioned between the two countries in proportion to the benefits that each country would derive from the completed project. This report is still under study by the interested federal authorities, and has been referred to the government of New Brunswick.



CANADIAN CASUALTIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if his attention has been directed to reports in the press that the families of soldiers who have appeared on the casualty lists from Korea are receiving letters which, it is stated, must have been communistically inspired. If so, will he let us know what has been done to investigate the situation?


Hon. Sluarl S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: My attention has not been directed to the report in question, but on receipt of the information from my hon. friend I shall be glad to look into it at once.



SEPARATION ALLOWANCES TO DEPENDENTS OF CANADIAN SERVICE PERSONNEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should like to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) if there is any difference between the separation allowance paid to dependents of Canadian service personnel in the Korean campaign and what was paid to dependents in world war II.


Mr. Abbott:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that this is the time to ask a question of that kind.



DECENNIAL CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of
Inquiries of the Ministry privilege, may I ask for a supplementary answer to a question answered yesterday and appearing at page 996 and 997 of Hansard. I direct my request to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in whose name the answer is given. Without going into detail I would direct his attention to the fact that question 2 was in two parts. The first part was answered in the affirmative. The second part of the question was in these words:
If so, from what persons were such recommendations received-
That has not been answered.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, on looking at the question I notice that it asks whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce had received recommendations from members of parliament, and, if so, from what persons were such recommendations received, and so on. I think it has been usual not to give information about correspondence between members of parliament and a minister. I think that is a well-accepted principle.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On what is that rule based?


An hon. Member:: Common sense.


George James McIlraith: If I had had some notice of this question I could have looked up the exact reference in Beauchesne's parliamentary procedure.



RENT CONTROL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. S. White (Haslings-Pelerborough):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will be able to inform the house before the Easter adjournment what will be the policy of the government as to the continuance of rent control?	*
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): There has been no change in the policy of the government, announced several months ago, affecting nation-wide rent control, which will expire at the end of April. The information I have, obtained from the press rather than from official sources, is to the effect that most of the provincial governments are arranging to enter this field at that time.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 6, consideration in committee of Bill No. 77,
[Stage Direction]
Defence Production Act respecting the department of defence production-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 29-Inquiry and appointment of investigator.
Edmund Davie Fulton: The last time we were discussing this section we were asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce about his radio broadcast and the effect of this bill and the defence program generally on the Combines Investigation Act. It was stated by both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Justice that in certain cases connected with the defence production program it might be necessary to call in an industry and ask them to make certain arrangements which prima facie would be an offence under the Combines Investigation Act. It was said that if that should become necessary an order would be made under the Emergency Powers Act which would have the effect of placing such an industry in the clear so far as the combines act was concerned.
Just before eleven o'clock a question was asked whether that power to set aside the Combines Investigation Act did not exist under section 28 of this bill; whether that section did not give the Minister of Trade and Commerce the right to suspend the Combines Investigation Act for the purpose which he had in mind. The matter was not dealt with fully before the house adjourned, and I wonder if the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Justice could state whether in his opinion section 28 does in fact give that power.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am not too sure that I heard the whole of my hon. friend's question, as a conversation was going on just beside me. I hope my hon. friend will correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of what he said is that he is urging that section 28 of the bill empower the minister to direct that in connection with a defence order a person shall not be bound by any obligation imposed by or under any statute such as the Combines Investigation Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not urge that that be done; I asked whether section 28 gave that power.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will treat it on the basis of whether it could be done. I think my hon. friend on reflection will agree that it would be difficult to imagine a set of circumstances under which such an order could be made. Section 28, as its language clearly indicates, is directed toward removing legal obstacles to the entering into or the performance of defence contracts. A typical defence contract is a contract for the purchase of certain iefence supplies-for example, motor transport, radar, guns and the like-between the

government as a buyer and a single manufacturer as a seller. I suggest that in relation to such a defence contract it is almost inconceivable that it would involve, even collaterally, any agreement between the manufacturer named in that defence contract and other manufacturers with regard to the fixing of prices for any commodity.
On the other hand, a typical price fixing agreement under the Combines Investigation Act is an agreement entered into between two or more corporations, usually in the same industry, to fix prices of certain lines of goods which they all produce or sell. Such an agreement could not, I think, possibly be considered as a defence contract within the meaning of section 28 of the department of defence production bill. Therefore if any effective method is required of exempting from the operation of the Combines Investigation Act an agreement fixing prices, a clause of much more specific application than clause 28 must be provided. In our view it might most aptly take the form of a clause in an order in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act. In the view of the Department of Justice we have never thought of relying upon section 28 in any way to achieve the purpose to which my hon. friend was referring in his question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is true, however, is it not, that the operation of the defence production act may make it necessary to enact these orders in council which the minister says will be enacted under the Emergency Powers Act? I refer particularly to the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce as reported at page 987 of Hansard, where he said, with respect to his remarks on the radio broadcast:
I had fn mind a situation where it might be necessary in the public interest, and by reason of the defence program, to invite a number of industries to take part in arrangements which would ordinarily make them suspect under the Combines Investigation Act.
I take it, then, it is contemplated that situation may arise by reason of the bill that we are now considering.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It may very well.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then the intention is, and in fact the statement of the Minister of Justice is, that the only way in which the Combines Investigation Act can be, shall I say, suspended, with respect to that arrangement is under the Emergency Powers Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: For the purpose of getting it on Hansard, I take it that the minister says yes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I said it was right. I guess my hon. friend did not hear me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Referring to the wording of section 28, it reads:
The minister may, by order, direct that a person shall not be bound by any obligation, restriction or limitation imposed on that person by or under any statute, order, rule, regulation, bylaw, or contract with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order affecting the entry into or performance of a defence contract by that person or the carrying out of an order made by the minister under this act.
Is it not very probable that in arranging for the supplying of defence materials by industries-and purely for the sake of illustration let us take the motor vehicle industry -parts will be interchanged between the three main manufacturers when they are making standard vehicles? In that case would it not be necessary to bring them into conference, and, for the purpose of setting the over-all price of the end product, provide that such parts as are manufactured by one or two shall be made available to the others at standard prices, and vice versa, so that an order might well be issued under this act which would invoke section 28?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, Mr. Chairman. If you will excuse me, it is not done that way at all. If we were ordering parts from Ford of Canada to go into a common vehicle we would make a contract with Ford of Canada in which the prices would be set out, and we would make a contract with General Motors in which the prices would be set out. The prices might be the same in each case but there would be no possible violation of the Combines Investigation Act in that event.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe this matter was made clear the night before last when it was before the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Far from it, if you will read Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Kamloops may be right in saying that it was not made completely clear. That is all the more justification for my asking that it be made clear now. There is one point that I should like to have made clear, and I think the Minister of Justice will agree with me that it should be made clear at this point in our discussion. It relates to the question as to the tabling of any orders or regulations that would have the effect of suspending either in whole or in part any of the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. The Minister of Justice has said today-and I thought quite clearly-that it is the view of the Department of Justice that if any suspension of the Combines Investigation Act is effected it would have to be done not under this act but under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act. Is it fair to say that because the Emergency Powers Act requires
Defence Production Act that any order or regulation made thereunder, as defined in the Regulations Act, must be tabled in this house, it follows that in the view of the Minister of Justice any order suspending either in whole or in part the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act would have to be tabled in the house?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: 
Mr. Coldwell:: The reason for pressing this matter, of course, is that we think parliament should know if in any particular the Combines Investigation Act or any part of it has been set aside by order in council. The minister says the legislative order would be tabled.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Certainly.


Major James William Coldwell: That of course would give members of parliament an indication that something had been done and, as the minister says, a member could then ask what had been done. But would it not be wiser, even from the government's point of view, to have it made clear that action taken under such a legislative order in council should be tabled as well? The moment a member on the opposition side of the house, let us say, asks for information of this description, it seems that one is dragging from the government something that ought to be placed before the house and made clear without even a question being asked about it. That was the point I had in mind; in other words I was thinking of protecting the minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The protection my hon. friend was offering was to ask the minister to give an opinion on this extremely hypothetical question. It seems to me I gave the only honest opinion any lawyer could give; that is, until one sees what the regulation is, one cannot say whether or not it falls within the act. It probably would, but I would want to see it before saying definitely. I do not think you could get any lawyer to tell you whether or not a regulation not in existence, passed pursuant to an order in council also not in existence, fell within a certain statute.


Major James William Coldwell: But the act is in existence.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes, but with wide general powers. In what direction those powers will be exercised, or what they will provide, or what will be the procedure, is not in anybody's mind as yet. I do not think you could extract from any prudent lawyer in Canada an opinion of that sort, and I am sure my hon. friend is not going to extract it from me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then may I ask the minister to give another opinion, which I do not think 

will involve him in any liability or subsequent embarrassment. When this subject was being discussed Tuesday evening the Minister of Trade and Commerce said at page 987 of Hansard:
If and when such a situation arises it should be defined and placed on record under the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act.
That was in relation to a group of industries being called in. Then the minister went on to say:
Any industry before entering into such an arrangement would do well to see to it that its position has been so defined...
In giving his statement the same evening the Minister of Justice said at page 988:
Therefore, in the interests of the proper administration of the Emergency Powers Act on the one hand and the Combines Investigation Act on the other, it is very desirable that any of these arrangements of this kind that are entered into under direction should be covered by a regulation or an order which will be recorded with the combines investigation commission-
And he went oh to say:
-and will, I presume, very likely take the form of an order that would be tabled in parliament.
What type of order is it contemplated will be made? Is it merely a record of the fact that a conference has been held, or a specific order providing that the industries named with respect to a certain meeting and the consequences which flow from that meeting are exempt from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I want to be as helpful as I possibly can in replying to questions such as the one just asked, but I would like hon. members to realize that we are discussing the terms of this bill and in that connection really the terms of the Emergency Powers Act. Those are really the only subjects to which the minds of members of the government have been directed. So far as I know- and I am the minister who would be instructed to see to the drafting of these things by the law officers of the department-we have not reached the stage of giving consideration to the provisions of such an order in council, to say nothing of any executive order which might be passed under it. Therefore when we discuss these hypothetical orders in council and regulations we are discussing them in a complete vacuum, and I am being asked to prophesy what will happen, and whether or not things not yet in existence will fall within the Emergency Powers Act. I do not see how any person could possibly express any judgment on that score. What we are concerned with now is, first, whether section 28 of the present bill has any application to

the tabling of orders in council we are discussing. In my view it has not. Second, whether the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, which we have just passed, have any application; and I have said in my opinion they have. Beyond that I am afraid I cannot accommodate my hon. friend, because we have not as yet directed our minds at all to that further procedure under these statutes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may say just a word, this discussion is so unrealistic that it is rather disgusting to a man who has to be on the firing line. Let me give my hon. friends an illustration of the problem. Some time ago we had to suspend a subsidy on wheat. The action could not be announced before the effective date; otherwise there would have been stockpiling and trouble. When we decontrolled wheat there had to be a compensating increase in the price of flour, and as soon as the decontrol order was announced it was necessary to telephone every baker that the increase in the price of flour should not be more than so much. That was done over the telephone in a great hurry. Prices were increased to that level and the matter was forgotten until Mr. McGregor brought down his report, in which the increased price was made one of the principal charges against the milling industry-that they had combined to fix that price.
That is the situation. What could we do? Could we let everything run wild for a few days until we got an order in council and tabled it in the house? If my hon. friends are serious about wanting price control-and the people trying to tie us up are those who want price control-we cannot be hobbled by any such regulation, written in advance, as my hon. friend is suggesting. Price control is a very high-powered affair; it must be operated with great speed and without too many rules and regulations to follow if it is to be effective. Therefore if my hon. friends seriously want us to undertake price control, do not tie us up as to how we should operate vis-a-vis the combines act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think what the minister has said and what was said by the Minister of Justice indicate that the government must have-and if it has not it should have-given some consideration to how it is going to do this thing. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has just now said that great difficulties arose under similar circumstances when this thing had to be done in the past. I should imagine that at the least the government would be-in fact, I am quite certain they are-most anxious to avoid similar difficulties in the future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite so.
Defence Production Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: Therefore it surely follows
that if they wish to avoid those difficulties, and wish to be in a position to act quickly, as the minister has said it is necessary to act on occasions such as these, it is necessary to know in advance under what powers they are going to act, and along what lines they are going to act when they do decide to go ahead.
The Minister of Justice has said that the government has not yet directed its mind to the question of how it is going to be done. I do not want to tie the ministers down to every statement made on this subject on every occasion, but I would point out that when the matter was brought up on Tuesday the Minister of Justice was able to hand to the Minister of Trade and Commerce a statement concerning it, which the Minister of Trade and Commerce read to the house. It is hardly consonant with the facts, and with the importance of this subject, to ask us to accept without further explanation the state-.ment that the government has not directed its mind to the question of how these things are to be done when the time arises.


Mr.   Kowe@: The government can direct its mind all it likes, but if the time comes when we get seriously into price control, and it has to take a chance on violating the combines act or take a worse chance on letting some prices run wild, I assure you that if I am responsible or asked for advice as to what should be done I will do what will mean the most to the Canadian people, and take my chance on being ridiculed in this house, as I was on one other occasion. If you want me to commit myself, that is the stand I take today.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think the minister appreciates what we want to do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You want rules and regulations laid down under which we will act if we undertake price controls.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not suppose the Minister of Trade and Commerce likes to be put in a position where he has transgressed or broken some law. He has told the people that it may be necessary to suspend the operation of the Combines Investigation Act, and I think that-


Clarence Decatur Howe: If we do suspend the act, the regulation is brought down and tabled saying that we are going to do it. How we operate it after that, we cannot tell you. It will have to depend on circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The questions that are being asked are directed to the point of how we are going to find out that has been done. If it is an order or regulation of one type which is tabled automatically, then we know.
1030

Defence Production Act If if is an order or regulation of another type, then it is not tabled and we do not know. It is for that reason we are asking how it is to be done. We want to know whether we will be informed of these things as they come along, or whether we shall have to dig out the information.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It seems to me that my friend is labouring prematurely a point that is not relevant to this discussion at all. What we are discussing under this bill, and what we were discussing under the Emergency Powers Act, are the powers which this parliament is to vest, if it sees fit, in the governor in council. What my hon. friend is talking about is, what is the governor in council going to pass in the way of orders in council under these powers? Then, when the order in council is passed, what kind of executive orders are going to be made under those orders in council? If my hon. friend will reflect for a moment, I think he will realize that no two ministers can sit in this parliament and prophesy what sort of order in' council the governor in council is going to pass under statutes of the sort now under consideration.
All this discussion which has taken place is the proper sort of discussion to take place when such an order in council is tabled. With all our talents we are not prophets, and we cannot prophesy what the order in council may be in order that my hon. friend may criticize it or that we may defend it. With all deference, I think we should address ourselves to the subject matter of this bill. When this order in council is passed, and it comes before parliament, we shall be glad to discuss it. I find myself under immense difficulty when it comes to talking about a thing that is not in esse; it is a difficult intellectual exercise for anyone to undertake.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe some issues have been raised in this discussion which should be cleared up before we leave this section. I do not blame the Minister of Trade and Commerce for making the remark that some people want price controls, and then seem to do everything they can to prevent the legislation which would make price controls possible being passed. I do not know to whom-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that. I said, tie us up with regulations that would make it impossible to administer price controls.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will accept that. I want the minister to recognize that so far as this group is concerned we have given the government an affirmative vote on every point in connection with this legislation.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Just keep up the good work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That makes me think we could have been wrong. We have even voted against the amendments that have been moved by our hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative group.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Even those which the government accepted1?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, for we supported the amendment taking the minister off the same plane as His Majesty, but we certainly voted against any amendments that seemed to us to have the effect of limiting the flexibility which the government needs in order to administer a program of price and production controls. I do think, however, we have to pause a moment when the minister complains that what we are doing might tie the government too much because of the loss of time involved in passing orders in council and tabling those orders in council in parliament. I am just as reluctant as other members in the house to give wide powers to the government, but I stated earlier that I believe those powers have to be given. Since that is the case, the only thing for us to do is to retain as much of a check as we can on the government by at least insisting on knowing what they have done-not necessarily what they are going to do, but what they have done. The way to do that is to insist that the statutes make it clear that notice of what they have done will be placed on the table of parliament.
There is no loss of time. The cabinet can meet any time to pass an order in council, and it becomes law when it has been passed. The statute indicates within what period of time these orders or regulations have to be laid on the table, but they are in force between the time they have been passed by the governor in council and are laid on the table. All we are asking is that this parliament, to which the government is responsible, be kept fully informed, at all times.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce refers to the clamouring for a price control program.


Mr. Carroll:: I should like to know how members can discuss all these questions under section 29?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are on section 28, are
we not?


The Chairman:: Section 28 has been
carried.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Section 28 was carried at the last sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When was section 28
carried?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I was not here, but on
looking at Hansard, I see that section 28 has been carried.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On page 987 of Hansard, at
the top of the left-hand column we see: "Section as amended agreed to."


Stanley Howard Knowles: How is it that we have had all this discussion for the last forty minutes if section 28 was carried?


Mr. Ferrie:: That is what we want to know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Furthermore, it is a discussion in which the ministers have participated.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: As soon as a point of order is raised I have to make a decision.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you not call section 28, sir?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: I called section 29.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I point out that this
discussion started on section 29 on Tuesday evening, and we are now continuing the discussion which was started then, and which has been carried on without interruption. It has to do with power to appoint an investigator, and deals with the procedures under which things are done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, but for' the
interruption I would have been through with my comment on this point. In the light of the situation that has developed, we feel that we simply have to know what the government is doing. In the light of the experience which the Minister of Justice had with this particular piece of legislation that we are talking about, namely, the Combines Investigation Act, starting back in November, 1949, this is the kind of thing about which the government should lean over backwards, and instead of there being any protest at the requests that are being made from this side, we should be given the Minister of Justice's assurance, not as a lawyer but as a member of the government, that we shall be kept fully informed as to any steps taken to interfere in any way with the Combines Investigation Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Question.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall clause 29 carry?


William F. Carroll: There is another matter that
I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I have no doubt that the persons who will be appointed as investigators will be capable, and will have some knowledge of investigations of this kind. Is it only a report that these investigators make, or do they find a person guilty or not guilty?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; they simply make a report, and then the case is brought into court in the usual way.


William F. Carroll: There is one other matter.
I do not know whether the Inquiries Act 80709-671
Defence Production Act makes provision for warrants of search. I do not think it does. If I had taken a moment before I came into the house I could have found out. But I would suggest to the minister-it does, does it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No-I was just nodding assent to your suggestion.


William F. Carroll: I would suggest to the minister that the reference that is made in the section to ex parte applications, judges and so forth, may take away a part of that dispatch which will be necessary when investigators make inquiries under this legislation. There may be times when the investigator finds out in a hurry that certain goods, papers, merchandise, or anything of that kind, may be moving about the country here and there, and it may be difficult for him at that time to approach a judge of the supreme court or the county court and so on. I am just bringing this to the attention of the minister because it may not be good for that dispatch which I think is necessary in investigations of this kind.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's
remarks I might say that this wording is taken almost completely from the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act, where it appears on page 18 of the office consolidation of that act; and that it has been found in practice to be adequate there. Of course we are not desirous of taking any greater powers under any of these laws than are necessary to accomplish the things in view, and where it has been found that they are adequate for that purpose, we have stuck to existing procedure.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Subsection 3 of section 29 reads:
An investigator may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated ... to be represented by counsel.
Why should a person not have the right in any case to be represented by counsel? Why must he have the consent of the investigator to be represented?


William F. Carroll: To make assurance doubly sure.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We are exposed to criticism of every kind. Even when we put in here, within the abundance of caution, language confirming that he has the right to be represented by counsel, my hon. friend objects that he would have that right anyway. Well, he will have it without any question as a result of this subsection.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It will not be written into the act. It says "may" at present.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is there now.

Defence Production Act


Gordon Francis Higgins: It says: "The investigator "may", not "shall". The word "shall" is used after the report has been made.


Jean Lesage: Read the section.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Read it yourself; it is divided into two.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The subsection reads:
An investigator may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom a charge is made in the course of such inquiry, to be represented by counsel.


Mr. Low:: He has discretion.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There are two separate sections. That particular clause can be divided into two, really.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is quite true. He has a discretionary power, which I would not imagine he would exercise in any other direction but allowing counsel; but in any event if there is any charge to be laid he "shall" allow counsel.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why cannot he have that right in the first instance?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This act was good enough to get us through the last war, and I find it very difficult to believe that the opposition find anything abnormal in a war situation-I really do. The bill before the house has been prepared as the result of experience and in an effort to get an act under which the government could move expeditiously in matters having to do with carrying on its war duties. Why would we come back and change an act that worked well in the last war? For instance, if we suspect that stolen war materials are in a certain place, if we have to wait until a man sends out for his counsel before we can search-


Gordon Francis Higgins: This section does not cover that. But two wrongs do not make a right. This particular section merely speaks of a man who is accused-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: No.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Hold on; it certainly does. Let me read it to you again. It says:
An investigator may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act-
Then we shall forget the next words until we come to these:
-to be represented by counsel.
That is the way you must read it.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. My hon. friend as a lawyer knows perfectly well that a man is not accused if he is merely under investigation. Under the act, there is no-


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why do you have it in the act
at all?
fMr. Garson.]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: -no question of his even being accused.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Why do you have it in the
act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Just a minute. But as soon as he is accused then it says the investigator shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such inquiry to be represented by counsel. I might tell my hon. friend that this is the identical wording of section 22, subsection 3, subparagraph (b), page 18 of the office consolidation of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act. It is taken from that act. This is the section under which all necessary proceedings of this sort were taken during the wdiole of world war II. But if my hon. friend is not satisfied with the fact that it proved to be quite fair and reasonable for this purpose, let him refer to the Inquiries Act, which is of general application, and he will see in section 12 the language is identical. It says:
The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.	[DOT]


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am not satisfied yet, I do not mind telling you.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If this provision, which has stood the test of time over all these years, is open to any sort of the abuses which my hon. friend seems to imagine, I should think the likelihood is that we would have heard about them before now.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Has it been tested?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes; I am sure it has been
used. It must have been, because there must have been investigations under it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Do you know it has been
used?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I cannot offhand give any
specific case, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in the Inquiries Act. That is not wartime legislation. It is civilian, peacetime legislation, and it has been in force for years. Why it should be objectionable when given a wartime application, when it is good enough for peacetime, I cannot imagine.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: For the hon. member's information, this provision was passed in 1912. I should think, referring to the hon. member's question, that there is a distinct likelihood that during the intervening period it has been used at one time or another.


Gordon Francis Higgins: A few moments ago the
Minister of Justice used the expression, "with

Defence Production Act
all our talents." Now, with all the minister's And then, in subsection 5 it states: talents, can he tell me the necessity tor put- An investigator may in writing, with the approval ting it in the act?	of a judge-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I did not put it there.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not
wish to delay the passage of the bill, but I must say there has been no reason given for including this provision, except that it has been there a long time. After all, neither the Minister of Justice nor 1 was here when it was put in, and it might be quite wrong. But, speaking seriously, it may be asked: Can anyone suggest there is any objection to it? Well, if I was being investigated by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, let us say, even before being charged I would certainly feel it was a serious matter; and I am not at all sure that I would not feel it very desirable to have counsel in. The damage might be done by the time the investigation was over; then it would be much too late for one to go back and try to clear himself.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Does my hon. friend think this
is a good time to revise a section in the Inquiries Act that has been there since 1912?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest
that we are giving the most extraordinary power-power which was never dreamed of when the Inquiries Act was passed.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is the ordinary provision.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is no
suggestion that it could do any harm. If either of the ministers can point out any harm that would come from what has been suggested, I would be slowed up. However, that has not been done. Apparently it is just because they think that, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, nothing can be altered.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No, just a moment. I do not mind being overridden altogether, but I am not satisfied, and I just wish that to be known.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is a good law of this parliament that we do not have to satisfy everybody.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Very unreasonable.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The section says:
No report shall be made against any person until reasonable notice has been given to him.
What does the minister understand by the expression "reasonable notice"? What is notice, and what is reasonable, and how is it to be given?
And so on. How is that approval to be obtained? Is it to be a written approval, or what?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend, who is a lawyer himself, will know that where the word "reasonable" is used in this sort of context in a statute its meaning is to be interpreted by the judicial body before whom the question arises. All those who are responsible for the carrying on of proceedings of this sort are under the necessity of seeing to it that the notices they do give are reasonable notices; because if they do not give reasonable notices a challenge can be made on a question of fact-if the matter becomes one at issue.


Gordon Francis Higgins: But this report does not go before a judge; it goes to a minister.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But if the point is ever raised, and there is any question where it must be defined, then those who take the proceedings have to assume responsibility for giving a notice which in fact is reasonable.
This language also appears in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act, section 22(3)(c); and I should imagine that the reason for the use of the word "reasonable" is that the circumstances under which these inquiries will be made will vary greatly one from another. In those circumstances it would be better to use the word "reasonable" as applied to the circumstances of any particular investigation than to have some fixed period which might be all right for one investigation but all wrong for another.
My hon. friend, with his familiarity with the statutes, would agree I am sure that this term appears frequently in statutes.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Except that in this instance the length of the notice is to be determined by the minister. Who determines the time before it reaches the point where it goes to court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Those who are in charge of the proceedings, in the circumstances of each individual case, are under the statutory obligation to see that what they do is reasonable. What could be more reasonable than to direct people to be reasonable?


Gordon Francis Higgins: That is not very reasonable.


Mr. McLure:: I note the expression "the minister may", an expression used in the bill about one hundred and fifty times. In connection with the investigation of contracts, what information must the minister have sent to him before these contracts can be

Defence Production Act investigated? It has been suggested by the minister that this was good enough for the last war-but there are a lot of things which occurred at that time we do not want to dig up. I have in mind however a contract that was sublet; then it was sub-sublet, and I think it was later sub-sub-sublet. In the event of an investigation, where would they start; would it be with the sub-contractor, the contractor himself, or the sub-sub-sub-contractor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those questions are too deep to be answered today.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Well, it was under your jurisdiction at that time-your administration, or maladministration, whichever it was. I should like to know who would make the appeal to the minister in connection with, we will say, a clothing contract. The minister, even with all his power and virility, cannot see to all these contracts. If I want to have an investigation made about a contract for clothing or uniforms, to whom would I appeal? What information would I have to give?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister would decide whether in his opinion an investigation was warranted, and might do it on his own initiative or on the report of my hon. friend, confirmed by the proper officers; or he might do it for any reason. He can do it for any reason and at any time he likes, and he does it where he believes something has gone wrong.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Would he start with the subcontractor or the contractor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Anywhere he thought wise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 30-Essential materials and services; designation of materials and services as essential.
Mr. Green:: This is taken from the old Essential Materials (Defence) Act passed last September. What materials have been designated as essential to date?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know whether I can give the full list, without referring to records. However, they include steel, copper, zinc, lead, nickel, aluminum, tungsten and a few more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Cobalt?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; it is under export control- and also antimony. It is that type of material.


Howard Charles Green: They are all in that class?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Then, under paragraph (b) power is given to the governor in council to designate essential services, as distinguished from the essential materials to which reference is made in paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) defines an essential service as-
The carrying on of any commercial activity, including the generation and distribution of electrical energy.
And so on. Have any services been designated as essential under that provision?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention that an
individual business could be designated as essential, or might it be used, for example, to designate all hydroelectric plants across Canada as an essential service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It could be.


Howard Charles Green: In what manner would such designation be made? Is it intended to apply only to one firm or one plant, or would it apply to the whole industry?


Clarence Decatur Howe: For example, if it was considered essential to use electric power for making aluminum instead of fertilizer, that electric power could be declared an essential service and an order would issue accordingly. If there was not enough water to go around and water was required for a war plant instead of a paper mill, water would be declared an essential service. It is that type of service that this section is intended to cover.


Howard Charles Green: Was that done in the last war, and, if so, could the minister give us some examples?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had no essential materials
act in the last war but I am told that it was done under the War Measures Act in connection with electric power.


Howard Charles Green: Was it used for any other service?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As far as I recall electric power was the only thing.


Howard Charles Green: Under this provision practically any type of service, such as supplying oil or water, could be designated as being essential.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: If the governor in council so decided, they could include a complete industry right across Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it was -thought necessary, yes.


Mrs. Fairclough:: I am a little concerned about essential materials which may be required by municipalities for the construction of major works. I shall be specific. There is at present under way in Hamilton

the construction of a large sewer to service an area which is rapidly being built up. As a matter of fact, there would not be much use in trying to build up the area unless this service could be given. The work has already been started and it will take about three years to finish. Can the minister state that contracts that have been entered into for supplies will not be interfered with when the projects are required for health and expansion purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is a rather large guarantee to give. It might be interfered with by the Russians.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would not be worried about the Russians if the minister can give a guarantee.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am afraid I cannot give that guarantee.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Do I understand that the minister cannot even give a reasonable assurance that these contracts will be honoured?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Those who are responsible for the administration of the act governing the use of materials try to use the best judgment as to essentiality. It has been our effort and it will continue to be our effort not to interfere with important civilian projects.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just last year we had difficulty procuring supplies under contracts which had been signed previously. I am concerned, and I am sure the present administration of the city of Hamilton is concerned, about this large project now under way.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend had said that they had not been concerned about supplies I would have said they were in a unique position. Anyone carrying on any project is concerned about supplies.


Solon Earl Low: I am not just sure whether this is the section under which to ask the question I have in mind, but I am going to take a chance. Is the minister prepared to say to what extent he and the government have developed1 a national fuel policy to ensure the adequate supply of fuel, especially coal and oil, or to provide for its stockpiling to meet any future emergency? I am thinking of an emergency that might cut off the 26 million tons of coal now being brought in from the United States. Under section 30 the minister could designate coal and other fuels as essential materials.	'	[DOT]


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct.


Solon Earl Low: Would it not be important to have a well-developed fuel policy when such designations are made so that we would be
Defence Production Act assured of adequate supplies to meet any emergency that might arise? Can the minister inform us just how far the government has gone in the development of a national fuel policy?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It seems to me that this is a peacetime rather than a wartime question. I remember hearing talk about a national fuel policy in 1908 when I first came to this country, and I have heard it every year since. I think we have been generally developing a national fuel policy which has become more definite each year. I hope we shall continue to do that, but I hardly think we can put it high on the list of war problems.


Solon Earl Low: Does it not assume more gravity at a time like this than it does in peacetime? There seems to be considerable discussion in other countries about the necessity of stockpiling sufficient fuel, both liquid and solid, in strategic areas in order to meet whatever emergency may arise. I was wondering if the government had proceeded with any such plans for Canada, and I assume that these would naturally be related to sections 30 and 31 of this bill.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The people using coal are stockpiling at the present time, and I think the stockpiles are fairly full. I remember the winter before last we had stockpiles of coal but that did not save us from getting into a good deal of trouble, and that was in peacetime. I doubt if the risk of running out of coal is any greater in wartime than in peacetime. Perhaps it would not be as great because those who produce the coal would not be as liable to interrupt production as in peacetime.


Mr. Fraser:: Have any essential materials been shipped to countries in the Soviet bloc during the last six months, and I include China? The export permit regulations of February 2 state as follows:
Your attention is also drawn to the attached revised list of commodities which may be exported under general permit SPL-1597, without the necessity of obtaining an individual permit, to all destinations except North Korea, China, Hong Kong, Macau, Manchuria and Mongolia, as of February 1,' 1951.
There would also be Soviet Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries. I notice that among other things that may be shipped are agricultural implements, tools and business machines.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The area control against shipments to countries behind the iron curtain has been in effect for some time. We are not at war with any of the countries in the east referred to by the hon. member. We have a control covering that area, but it is not as

Defence Production Act strict as that in connection with countries behind the iron curtain. I can assure the hon. member that nothing of any strategic importance has been shipped to Russia or any of the satellite countries for a long time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Outside of some scrap metal that was sent.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I understand that under this section the minister would have the power to set up hydroelectric plants.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We have the power, but we never do it.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am sure the minister is fully aware that the Hamilton river in Labrador has a potential capacity equal to 60 per cent of the electricity now used in Canada. There is a tremendous possible development in northern Quebec as well. With respect to this iron ore deposit I was wondering whether there was any possibility of the electricity being used. Does the minister have anything of that kind in mind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the slightest. I might say that water powers are the property of the provinces. All development of water powers, other than private development, is carried out by the provinces. Theoretically we may have the power to build hydro projects but practically we do not.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There is nothing in mind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think the minister said that magnesium is one of the essential materials. There was an item in a Canadian Press report yesterday, I think it was, that a $2,500,000 capital assistance grant has been approved by order in council to expand the production of magnesium castings for North America's most powerful jet engine, the Orenda. I understand that is regarded as an essential material. Would, the minister tell me under what powers that order in council was passed?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Capital assistance provided from the military vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry, I did not hear the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is capital assistance provided out of the vote for the armed services.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From the national defence vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister takes these powers, which to most of us seem so astounding, in his stride. I listened to his

explanation of the necessity of controlling, let us say, a certain power project which was manufacturing one thing and which was desired to manufacture another. Once you can perform the astonishing feat of accepting these powers I can understand the need for that, but as I understand it, it means that the minister can take over the Ontario hydro electric power commission, and under section 31 he could then require persons to obtain permits and so on to receive power under the act. Does the minister think it is necessary to have that terrific power? Does he not think that power to take over local plants would be sufficient and that the section could be limited in that way?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend will be surprised to learn that we operated the Ontario hydro electric power system for about three years during the last war. We did so at the urgent request of the commission itself. The chairman of the commission was the deputy power controller for that area. The reason we operated the system was that the commission was badly in need of emergency powers that the federal government had under the War Measures Act, and that the province did not have at that time, although they have them now in large measure.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I appreciate that the minister has scored a debating point with me but nevertheless I suggest that is the complete reverse, and that it does not really apply to what we are considering here.
I still leave that question with him.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister permit me to follow up the question of assistance for the production of those things based on essential materials? Is it the intention when the bill is passed that instead of these advances being made directly from the Department of National Defence appropriation it will be done under an estimate in this department, or still under the Department of National Defence Act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is proposed that it be done under estimate of this department when we have the estimate. It will not be until the coming fiscal year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In the meantime you will have to carry on under the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Control over essential supplies and projects.
Howard Charles Green: Section 31 lists the details of the things that may be done by the minister under the authority of the governor in

council. Are these powers wide enough to ration any materials that are designated essential materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: And as I understand it, the power is also included to fix prices on all these materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: Are both those suppositions correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: They are both correct.


Howard Charles Green: There is complete power to ration?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right. We are doing it today.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
On section 34-Non-disclosure of information.
George Stanley White: Section 34 says that no information can be given without consent except to a government department, and so on, for the purpose of the discharge of the functions of that department. Would such information be available to the Minister of National Revenue for the purpose of the discharge of the functions of that department?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It could be, yes. That is permitted under the act. Whether or not it would be would depend on whether we were asked for it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
On section 36-No action lies against controller or investigator.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Section 36 is one of those to
which we have been taking objection, particularly that these powers should be given at a time when we are not actually engaged in what has been described as a shooting war. This is one of the sections concerning which I would ask the minister whether he does not think it could be left at least so that it might be brought into effect only on proclamation, it being envisaged that such proclamation would be issued when and if we might be engaged in a general war? I do not think it is right than any person should be exempt from the consequences of his acts when he has the tremendous powers over other persons' property and affairs that these controllers have under this bill.


Howard Charles Green: May I suggest that the powers given to a controller or investigator under
Defence Production Act other provisions of the bill are extremely wide. If by any chance he should exceed those powers surely the government should then stand behind him and be prepared to compensate the person who has suffered as a result of the excess use of these powers. The section reads:
No controller or investigator is responsible at law for any act or thing done by him in good faith in the performance of his duties or the exercise of his powers under this act and no action may be taken against a controller or investigator in respect thereof.
The other evening we suggested that the powers of a controller should be limited to arranging for the completion of the defence contract, and that when that had been done he should get out. The minister said that in practice that would not work out, and would not agree to such an amendment. Section 36 goes much further in that it provides that no claim whatever can be made in respect of the actions of the controller even beyond what he was authorized to do.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh no.


Howard Charles Green: I would urge that the section
be dropped because if a controller should do something he has absolutely no right to do under the act then the government should stand behind him and make good any damage that has been caused.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The section does not exempt
the government for the act of its agent, the controller. It simply exempts the controller personally. I do not think you could get anyone to assume the office of controller if he could be personally sued for his actions.


Howard Charles Green: In a case of that kind the
ordinary practice would be for the department concerned to step in. For example, where a member of the forces is in an automobile accident in the course of his duties and an action is taken the crown has been assuming responsibility. Surely the same practice should be followed by the Department of Defence Production. The individual soldier does not have to pay damages if he was driving in the course of his duty. Here you have a similar case. The controller is carrying on in the course of 'his duty. -The department should stand behind him automatically.


Clarence Decatur Howe: So we do. The purpose of this provision is to enable us to get good men and to permit them to act with courage. A controller taking over another man's business has a pretty onerous responsibility. We expect that man to exercise his best business judgment. If he makes a mistake the recourse is not against him; it is against the crown who put him there. I have often wondered if someone would not turn on the crown

Defence Production Act some day and say, "Look here; see what you have done to my business." I think all that has saved us is the fact we have always left the business in better shape than we found it; but if we should leave a business in worse shape than we found it I think we would have an action against the crown, and nothing in this clause would interfere with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under ordinary law the crown is responsible for the wrongful acts of its servants or employees within the scope of their employment. Does not this legislation which in effect exempts or absolves a controller from the consequences of his acts at -least lead to the danger that the person wronged will have no recourse against the crown? If it is provided here that the employer is not responsible at law I should think it would be at least open to argument that the intention and the effect of the section would be to extend the same exemption to the employer, which in this case would be the crown. The minister has said that is not the intention, but I wonder if this section should not at least stand until that point could be looked into, because it seems to me to open the door to the possibility of complete exemption for any wrongful act or any injury which may be done the person whose plant may be controlled.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This clause has been used to protect many officers of the government. It was a standard clause in the wartime prices and trade board act, and we used it in the Department of Munitions and Supply Act. For myself, I certainly would not come to Ottawa and exercise wartime powers unless I had a clause of this kind to protect me personally; and no one else would.


Edmund Davie Fulton: According to my reading of it the munitions and supply act did not have a similar provision. The last one passed during the war, chapter 8 of the statutes of 1943, extended only to investigators, not to -controllers, though the minister appointed a number of controllers during the war. As to the wartime prices and -trade board, they had no power to take over a business. They had power to set prices, and so on, but not to take over a plant and operate it. So this is an extension of wartime powers now being made applicable to controllers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has asked me
a good many questions; now let me ask him one. Does he think we could get many good men to come to Ottawa if all their acts on behalf of the government made them personally liable? What does he think?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, I should think so-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not want to be one of them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -if you gave them a written undertaking that if they were acting in good faith the government would stand behind them. I should like the point cleared up that in the munitions and supply act this exemption was not given to controllers. As I say, from my reading of section 11 of the act of 1943, the last one passed, it extended this exemption to investigators, but subject to correction I cannot find that it was ever given to controllers by statute.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exemption was given to them
in the orders in council appointing them, under the War Measures Act and the munitions and supply act. I can assure my hon. friend that it is a necessary clause. If it were removed we would not be stripped of this power, because we would take it under the Emergency Powers Act; but if that protection were removed I am sure about half my staff would go home tomorrow.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to
me that we are in agreement as to what should be done. The only question is whether the wording makes it clear. I agree with the minister that -these men who come here have to be protected, and I was glad to hear the minister say there was n-o intention whatever of depriving the owner of the property of whatever may be his right at law. But the legal position seems rather obscured by the fact that in section 27 (2) the controller is declared to be agent of the owner. I am not going to offer any legal opinion, but I would certainly like to know whether the Minister of Justice will say the position is perfectly clear, in view of that declaration of agency of the controller, coupled with section 36. I should think the point we are making could be covered very easily by adding something to section 36 which would provide that while the controller was not responsible, nevertheless his principal, namely the government, was responsible. As it is now it seems to me that a clever lawyer could argue there is no foundation left for action.


Howard Charles Green: If the intention is as the
Minister of Trade and Commerce has expressed it, that while the controller would not be liable the individual would still have a claim against the -crown, what objection would there be to making that clear by adding a clause at the end of the section to this effect: "provided that rights against the crown shall not be affected hereby." That would make it clear that this section does not deprive the aggrieved person of his claim against the crown.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been made abundantly clear that every clause in this bill affords

the private person access to the courts. It is written into every chapter. I do not like to be silly about it and put in clauses provision for which is amply covered elsewhere. Would any lawyer opposite assert that, if we put a controller into a plant and as a result of his actions the plant went bankrupt, the crown would not be liable? In principle when we put in a controller we practically expropriate the plant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: From the present wording of the section, coupled with the wording of section 27, I think it is arguable. The controller is relieved from liability at law because of any action done in good faith, and section 27 makes him the agent of the owner.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This clause has been used a long time. It was drafted and checked by the Department of Justice and I am not prepared to change it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister just asked
whether we would be prepared to suggest there was any likelihood that the crown might be exempted from liability. We have suggested there is a likelihood, we have suggested the reason, and so far we have heard no answer to that objection and no reason why the words suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra should not be incorporated. That would still preserve the right of action against the crown.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of Justice has not answered my question, either. I am not suggesting that would conclude the matter, but it might help.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: No; we would like an answer from the Minister of Justice. It is going pretty far when we bring forward reasonable suggestions and cannot even get an answer. There is something wrong if we have reached that state of affairs.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, I certainly do not want to disappoint my hon. friends. The wording of this section is substantially the same as that of the section in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act which was in effect during the whole course of world war II.


Howard Charles Green: That act did not come into effect until 1947, did it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This last mentioned act and
its antecedent legislation. The only difference is that in the one case it applies to investigators and in the present case to a new official being appointed under this act, a controller; but the principle is exactly the same in each case.
Defence Production Act


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the investigator did not take over a plant.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No; there is a difference in that regard. It might be argued that the authority of the controller was somewhat greater than that of the investigator. I was not here myself at the time, but my information is that no cases of injustice or difficulty arose under the previous legislation. If my hon. friends allege that is not the case I would be glad to have them cite examples to the contrary. However, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has indicated, I do not think there is any disposition on the part of the government in exempting a controller or investigator, very properly, from any personal liability to leave the owner of the plant without any recourse against the government itself.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We do not
think so either, but why not say so?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is the point I was coming to. I make the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that I discuss this matter with the draftsman to see whether or not in his judgment that result does not obtain at the present time, and if it does not obtain then what apt language would be required to make it obtain. He is tied up in court this afternoon, but I could see him later and discuss the matter with him. If any amendment is necessary, I could bring it to the house. It is quite probable that none is required, because this other legislation has been in existence and has met all the needs of quite a number of cases. That would seem to indicate that the law as it stands is all right.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister draw to his attention the declaration that the man is an agent?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He is probably aware of that because he drafted the bill.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the Minister of Justice that the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act was never used for the purpose of taking over a man's business.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Department of Reconstruction and Supply Aot is the name under which that piece of legislation now goes, but the antecedent of the legislation is the act setting up the department of munitions and supply. As hon. members are aware, most of these sections were carried forward from one statute to the other, so I do not think anything turns on the title.


Howard Charles Green: But the legislation only applied to an investigator, and not a controller.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is true, but I think my hon. friend will agree that under the War

Defence Production Act Measures Act there would be legislation, perhaps by * order in council, that would have substantially the same effect. In other words, during world war II, under the War Measures Act, wartime prices and trade board regulations were enacted by order in council, and such orders in council would have provisions analogous to the ones we are discussing; and that proved to be quite satisfactory. I believe the proper course for us to follow, therefore, is to consult with the draftsman to see whether the points my hon. friends have raised are not already covered as the section stands, and if not, what would be the appropriate action to take to provide the protection my hon. friends request.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the section pass?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Carried.


Howard Charles Green: The section stands. The section cannot be carried if we are to have further time to consider it.
The Depuiy Chairman: Will hon. members speak a little louder. It is difficult to hear what is being said. I would also ask that members who are making interjections make them loudly enough to enable the Hansard reporter to hear them.
Shall section 36 stand?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think we might pass section 36, and then if an amendment is brought in it will relate to the matter of crown liability in any event.


Howard Charles Green: There are two other sections standing now, and I do not think it would hurt to allow this one to stand.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We are going to take those sections and pass them. This is the third or fourth day we have been on this bill. We have spent enough time. We have been very patient.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that he is not yet in a position to say we have spent enough time on any measure. He is not a dictator who decides how much time this house spends on a measure. I do not want to get into a quarrel with him, but I am sure he will agree with me when I say that is a very improper suggestion to make. We are doing our best to get this legislation into the form which we think is fairest to the Canadian people. No one is trying to hold up the bill. We are trying to get it in the best shape possible. If we are to be met with the statement from the senior minister of the crown that there has been enough time spent on this, what is parliamentary government coming to in this country?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does majority rule mean if that is the case, if one member can hold up the house?


Alphonse Fournier: Question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has asked for
power to control our economy for five years. We have not yet spent five days on the bill giving it to him, and he thinks we have spent too much time. Surely, section 36, which the Minister of Justice has said could be referred to the draftsman to see if the points under discussion had been covered, could be allowed to stand until the minister has had time to consult with the draftsman. We have certain very strong views on the provisions of that section. We have amendments which we contemplated moving, but in deference to the minister's indication of his intention we would prefer not to move those amendments but leave it to be decided in the way he has suggested. We do ask for the accommodation of allowing the section to stand.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not want to labour this point too much, but I think my hon. friends will agree that they are of the opinion that clause 36 which we have been discussing is properly in the bill; that is, that it is desirable that an investigator or controller be protected against personal liability. The only question that they raise is whether or not the effect of protecting the controller and investigator is to protect the crown. They do not want to see that result obtained. If we pass this section it will not prevent our bringing back an amendment to some appropriate section of the bill to accomplish what they have in mind.


Howard Charles Green: Any amendment will affect this section. Surely we are not asked to pass a section, and then if the minister later brings in an amendment to some other section covering the matter we will be precluded from discussing this particular section. The proper way to do this is to allow the section to stand, as the other two sections were allowed to stand. I believe the Minister of Justice knows that just as well as I do.


George Stanley White: May I
ask the minister a question? Does the minister make the decision as to whether or not a controller or investigator acted in good faith? If the answer is that the minister makes the decision, does that mean there is no possible way that decision can be brought before any court?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is a lawyer and I am not. What does he think the answer is?


George Stanley White: I asked the minister two questions. First, whether he decides the investigator acted in good

faith, and if so then I presume there is no way that decision can be brought before a court for review?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like to hire my hon. friend, because there is nothing in the clause that says the minister has to decide. It is a matter for the courts to decide.


George Stanley White: I asked the minister who makes the decision as to whether or not a controller or investigator acted in good faith. If the minister makes the decision would it follow that there is no way in which that decision can be brought before any court.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, of course, the court makes the decision.


George Stanley White: No. I
would ask the minister to consult his colleague, the Minister of Justice, and explain how the matter gets before the court, because he can only get before the court when he acts in bad faith.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Well, my hon. friend, being himself a lawyer, will, I think, be in a better position to appreciate what would happen in a case of this kind. Would he not agree with me that this is what would happen? Some gentleman, we will say Mr. John Doe, whose plant has been taken over by a controller and not properly administered-in general it is known then that he has a good claim against the controller because of his actions-consults his solicitor. His solicitor takes down the statutes and looks up this particular act. He comes on section 36. He thereupon concludes, after listening to the set of facts which his client has told him, that in this particular case the controller has not acted in good faith, and he launches an action against the controller, and the question as to whether the controller has acted in good faith would be decided by the judge. In order to get the case before the judge and under the provisions of this section of the bill, Mr. John Doe, who is the plaintiff, would have to show that the controller in this particular case did not in fact act in good faith. If he were able to prove that fact then clause 36 would no longer apply; and in that process the Minister of Trade and Commerce would be sitting by as a perfectly disinterested-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Spectator.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister going to let the clause stand?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think it will interfere in the slightest degree with the undertaking that has been given.


Howard Charles Green: We think it would.
Defence Production Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: We said we would bring down any necessary amendment there might be, and it will be added to the proper section of the bill. I think nothing turns upon whether it stands or is passed, and we might as well dispose of it while we are at it, and we will consider this other matter and I will report back to the house.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is a peculiar thing, Mr. Chairman, that when we had two other sections about which there was some doubt they were allowed to stand. Surely that is the proper procedure, because, as I understand the rules of the house, the only time at which an amendment to a clause can be moved* is at this stage in committee. I am not aware of any rule under which at a later stage, during third reading, this bill can be amended in detail by having one of the clauses amended unless the whole bill were to be opened up again or a new bill submitted. I do not think therefore that any other interpretation can be placed on the minister's proposal-that this should carry and that perhaps if they thought it necessary they would amend it in particular at some later time-than that they do not intend to improve this clause, but that they want to get it through so that it cannot be reopened; because there is no way in which it can be opened again.
The minister has still not dealt with the points that have been made. Let us assume that no one wants to see controllers personally embarrassed for actions they do in good faith, or made personally responsible. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that the section does not go too far even in that respect in relieving them of liability; in order to try to work out an acceptable amendment, let us say that there is agreement on that point. It is desired to exempt the controller from any attempt to make him personally liable for acts done in good faith, even though they injure the person who is the victim of the act. What is also desired is to provide that the crown shall be liable for the wrongful acts of its servants. The position is simply this. Provisions similar to clause 36 have not been in any previous statute. There has been in a previous statute a provision that an investigator is not responsible for any act or thing done by him in good faith. But, Mr. Chairman, under these statutes no investigator has ever been clothed with the powers which are now given under this bill to a controller, powers to take over a person's business and run it, not only in compliance with the directions of the minister but to run it as agent of the owner; no investigator ever had that power. No investigator could ever injure the property and rights of a citizen in the way
1042	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act in which a controller can do. Therefore the fact that an investigator was exempt from responsibility for his acts done in good faith has no bearing on the question of the exemption of the controller from that responsibility.
The fact that the munitions and supply act itself is conspicuous in that it did not contain the word "controller" in a clause similar to this, but only "investigator", is a strong argument in support of the proposition that if it was not necessary to give controllers that same protection under the munitions and supply act, there is no case made out as to why they must be given this protection under this legislation.


Alphonse Fournier: Why not move an amendment if you are not satisfied?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: We have one.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let the Minister of Public Works be patient.


Alphonse Fournier: I generally am.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This is getting very repetitious.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce says that it is getting very repetitious. There is a simple way in which the repetition, if it be that, can be avoided, and that is by answering the arguments which are advanced. We have had no answer to those arguments. The opposition's only recourse is to state the position clearly and then to move an amendment which would incorporate in the bill these things which we state in our arguments should be there.
Section 27 appoints the controller and makes the controller the agent of the owner. Section 36 exempts the controller from the responsibility of anything done by him in the performance of his power. It is therefore arguable, and very easily arguable, that if a case were to come before the courts as a result of some injury done to the person whose plant had been taken over, and the injured person sought to apply the ordinary law that the master, in this case the crown, is responsible for the wrongful acts of his servants, the courts, looking at these two sections together, would say: Well, the intention of parliament in this case was to provide that there was no wrong, and that you must accept whatever the controller does in the course of exercising his powers, provided that he does it in good faith; and that therefore the effect of that section is to provide that, by virtue of the emergency, parliament has declared that the former owner of the plant cannot be wronged by any act which the controller does. That is an argument which could not be dismissed lightly, because there is no limitation or qualification on the power of the controller, and there is no limitation or qualification on 

his exemption from the consequence of his act. I do not think it is proper for this parliament, if it can preserve the workability of the act, to place the owner in that position. Therefore, what is desired surely is an amendment which would make it clear that the controller does not himself have to pay for any damage he may do, provided that he acts in good faith, but at the same time the right of action against the crown is preserved. I think that that could be done simply by making provision that-
Nothing in this section or in this act shall limit or remove the right of any person to recover against the crown for any wrongful act done by such controller or investigator.
That, substantially, would be the subject of an amendment. It hardly seems possible-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Move it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It hardily seems possible to see how that would limit the effect of the act. What is the opinion of the Minister of Justice in this connection?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My opinion is this: Let my hon. friend move the amendment.


Howard Charles Green: I shall move it. I move:
That section 36 be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"Nothing herein contained shall limit the right of any person to recover against the crown for any wrongful act of such controller or investigator."
The Minister of Justice has already told us that he proposes to have this section considered by his officials after the six o'clock recess. He says he cannot reach them in the meantime, and that is understandable. But then he has gone on to make a suggestion with regard to procedure which is entirely unfair to us, and to the House of Commons. His suggestion is that, although this is to be considered at six o'clock, and although there is a possibility of an amendment being made by the government, still he wants to have the section passed at this time. The result is that if the government does not decide to bring down the amendment, there can be no further discussion and the subject is closed.
The practice followed ever since I have been here, in circumstances like these, has been to let the section stand. Already two other sections are standing, and no one is going to be hurt if this one is permitted to stand with those two. But for the government to take the attitude that the section must be carried now, whether or not at a later time it decides to make a change in it, is most unfair.
I would urge that the Minister of Justice permit the section to stand, and the matter could be dealt with briefly when it comes up this evening with the other two sections


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I received word about two
minutes ago that the draftsman will be here almost momentarily. With that in mind we could let it stand, then go on to clean up the other two which were stood over, in the hope that we may dispose of the bill before six o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the wish of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra that the amendment stand, as well?


Howard Charles Green: It may stand too, yes.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Then, I shall not
put it.
Amendment stands.
Section stands.
On section 37-Paramount powers under this act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have a word of explanation as to the significance of this section, and the terms of other acts which will be overridden by it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Section 37 refers to competitive tenders. The Public Works Act and the Public Printing and Stationery Act contain certain regulations covering public tenders that are not carried into this measure. The bill states that, in matters covered by the Defence Production Act, that act shall override the provisions of the Public Works Act and the Public Printing and Stationery Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is
the minister's attitude toward tenders, in the light of these powers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There are some differences to be considered. For instance, I think in the Public Works Act the limit for tenders requiring orders in council is $5,000, whereas in this measure it is $50,000. There are differences of that kind. All this measure states is that where the procedure is set out in this act and, as so set out, is in conflict with either the Public Works Act or the Public Printing and Stationery Act, this act shall govern.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Although the minister has said that the intention of the section is that it shall apply only to the provisions of those other statutes relating to tenders, nevertheless the wording indicates that the powers conferred by this measure may be exercised notwithstanding anything contained in these other acts.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is right. It covers everything, but it is aimed particularly at the matter of tenders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Despite the fact that I am prepared to give necessary powers to the
Defence Production Act government, and that I am calling upon them to use those powers for certain purposes, it seems to me this wording might have been a little more precise. For instance, the Public Printing and Stationery Act contains a section which relates to the wages paid to employees working for the printing bureau. I am wondering if it is possible, under the powers conferred by this section, for the minister to have printing done somewhere else at wages less than would be paid by the printing bureau. If not, why should not the wording of the section be such as to confine it to what the minister has in mind?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I might say that this has been narrowed down from the provisions of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act. The provision there was:
The powers conferred upon the minister by this act or by the governor in council may be exercised by him notwithstanding and without restriction or limitation by the provisions of any other act or orders in council enacted before this subsection came into force.
Which does the hon. member prefer?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I certainly prefer this one but with one exception; the other one did suggest that the overriding of other statutes was to be done by the governor in council.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one the minister just read^ yes. If I am wrong, read it again and show me where I am wrong.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It says:
The powers conferred upon the minister by this act or by the governor in council-
Either of them:
-may be exercised by him.
And so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, we may both be right and both be wrong. But it does seem to me that, bearing in mind what the minister said the other night about the reluctance of ministers to interfere with matters coming under the supervision of other ministers, it might be a good idea if this sort of thing did require consideration by cabinet. Here we are asked to give the minister power to do things which normally come under the supervision of the Minister of Public Works, but without having to fulfil the requirements of the Public Works Act. Similarly we are giving him power to do something in connection with printing, and that comes under the Secretary of State. And he may do it without referring the matter to the Secretary of State, and without obeying the conditions laid down in the Public Printing and Stationery Act. I think the provisions are a little on the wide side, and I object.
1044	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said that under this bill the amount of tenders is $50,000; is that right?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes-or perhaps I am wrong; I think it is $25,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, what is it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know, but if my hon. friend will read the bill he will find it. It is as much his duty as it is mine to read legislation we are discussing.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister is trying to give me a lecture about something he does not know himself. He said at first it was $50,000, and now he says he thinks it is $25,000. During the last war I believe the contracts were $5,000-at least they were at the first of the war. Was the limit raised at a later time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The provision is that where tenders have been called and the lowest tender accepted the minister has the authority to sign a contract, without an order in council, up to the amount of $50,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Up to $50,000?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Are these contracts going to be made on tender or will they be allotted?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That will be decided from time to time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If they are allotted will you guarantee the contractor that there will be a limit on the price he must pay for raw materials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is envisaged by the word "printing"? Will this cover stationery and printing for the Department of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hate to get annoyed, but a section of this kind has been in almost every act that my hon. friend has seen passed in this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That still does not answer my question. I submit that if one of the purposes of this department is to provide supplies that the Department of National Defence may require, and if one type of supplies is printing, I do not see why we should circumvent rules and practices governing government printing already in effect.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Orders and regulations.
Edmund Davie Fulton: It will be noted that there is no provision in this bill, such as is usual now in bills giving emergency powers, providing for the tabling of orders and regulations
fMr. Knowles.]

made under the statute. The minister has made certain concessions, I think in one and perhaps two instances, where the power to be granted was placed in the governor in council rather than in the hands of the minister, but there is as yet no provision in this bill governing the laying of orders in council and regulations before parliament. Therefore I intend to move an amendment to this section in exactly the same form as the amendment to Bill No. 24, the Emergency Powers Act, which was accepted by the Prime Minister. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra:
That Bill 77 be amended by numbering present clause 38 as 38(1) and adding thereto the following:
"(2) In respect of an order or regulation made under this act, the period for laying the same before parliament under section 7 of the Regulations Act is
(a)	five days after the making thereof if it is made by the governor in council, and
(b)	fifteen days after the making thereof in any other case,
or if parliament is not then in session, a like period after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.
(3) If the Senate and House of Commons within a period of forty days, beginning with the day on which any order or regulation is laid before parliament in accordance with subsection (2) and excluding any time during which parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both the Senate and House of Commons are adjourned for more than four days, resolve that it be annulled, it shall cease to have effect."
I point out that that amendment would incorporate as subsections 2 and 3 of section 38 the present subsections 4 and 5 of section 2 of Bill No. 24. It will be remembered that there was originally a limited provision for tabling orders in council in Bill No. 24, but subsequently an amendment was moved making it exactly the same as this one.


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill is quite different from the Emergency Powers Act. The Emergency Powers Act was for one year, while this bill is for five years. This bill deals with materials and things. For example, if an order is passed about copper the industry would be entitled to believe that there would be some stability to the order. If it is to be subject to reversal by parliament on short notice, say of forty days, it might cause a good deal of loss to the industry. The Regulations Act provides that orders in council shall be placed before parliament and orders in council passed under this bill would be tabled as required by the Regulations Act. I think that is as far as we should be asked to go with this kind of legislation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Emergency Powers Act provides for the passing of orders in council bringing into effect price control if and when considered necessary. Surely if the price of

goods is set at a certain point that particular industry or business would want to know that there was a reasonable certainty that the price would have some degree of permanency, just as the minister has said that a particular industry would want to know that an order with respect to materials would have a degree of permanency. In the case of the Emergency Powers Act the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice consented-in fact it was said that it was a good suggestion-that an amendment should be made in that respect.
Under section 28 of this bill the minister has the power to set aside provincial statutes and municipal bylaws. Under section 30 the governor in council is given the power to declare materials essential and to control them, and the same with services. To adopt the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, although it might be agreed that the circumstances are such that the government should have this power, we are entitled to ask that parliament be informed as rapidly and as fully as possible as to what is being done under the power we have delegated.
As the minister has said on a number of occasions-for the sake of argument we will agree with him on this occasion even though we have not before-what will be done under these powers will be reasonable and essential for the proper defence of Canada. If an order or regulation is passed for that purpose and in that spirit, what concern need the government or the minister have simply because that regulation or order is to be tabled in parliament in the shortest possible time? If it is reasonable, then it can be supported and explained. Surely under those circumstances there would not be much likelihood of its being repealed. The only purpose of this amendment is to get the matter drawn to the attention of parliament, have it brought before parliament as early as possible.
I hope the minister has not altered the opinion he expressed a couple of nights ago when he said that he would have no real objection to the incorporation of any such provision in this bill. If he has not changed his mind then I can see no reason why he should object to this amendment. May I ask the minister if he is now adopting the practice of saying one thing to the people of Canada and another thing to this House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My hon. friends say, "oh, oh," but let me point out to them what was said in the broadcast radio interview of two nights
Defence Production Act ago. The minister was asked these questions by one of the correspondents:
Q. In respect to letting parliament scrutinize some of these orders, the Prime Minister was good enough to consent in the emergency powers bill to give parliament the power to annul every such order and regulation that came to it. Would you have any objection to having such a provision incorporated in the defence production act?
A. No, none particularly, no.
Q. But there is no such provision in the act?
A. No.
I point out that the provision now sought to be included in this act is exactly the same as the provision in the Emergency Powers Act.


George James McIlraith: A different set of circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I suggest that the minister in consistency cannot say one thing on the radio to the people of Canada and then not comply with the request to incorporate it in the act when it is made in the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I am just as anxious as anybody else to keep the government in check. Sometimes the minister gets annoyed at things I say to him, and that will happen again, indeed many times. But just now I should like to point out the difference between the Emergency Powers Act and this act. The Emergency Powers Act is almost a blank cheque. It gives the government powers to do things not defined in the act. I do not think there is any argument but that it was imperative that there be written into that act the provision enabling parliament to annul orders passed under it. It is there, and we are glad that it is. But the bill before us is a bill setting up a department of government. Does it not have to be looked at in the same way as other departments of government, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Justice and so on? All of them have under their statutes authority to pass orders in council to carry out the provisions of those acts but none of them have in those statutes a provision making it possible for parliament to annul orders in council passed by those departments in pursuit of their regular duties and functions. If we are going to introduce that principle into this department do we not have to ask for the same thing with respect to these other departments? That would be rather drastic.
I submit that not only is there that difference but it must be pointed out that, whereas the Emergency Powers Act was a short one not defining the powers that the government can take, this is a fairly lengthy bill of some forty-one sections in which there is some considerable definition of the powers that this department is to have. I think there is a
1046	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act considerable difference between the conditions that required that the power of parliament to annul be written into the Emergency Powers Act and the circumstances pertaining to the bill before us.
One other point I wish to make is that the hon. member for Kamloops quoted me in support of his argument, with particular reference to my claim that we should know what the government is doing under this act. I still insist that is the case but I point out that the Regulations Act already requires that that information shall be made known to us. Earlier today I was demanding that that act be obeyed; that was my point. The Regulations Act really goes a considerable distance. The definition of a regulation under that act is as follows:
"Regulation" means a rule, order, regulation, bylaw or proclamation made, in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament, by the governor in council, the treasury board, a minister of the crown, or a board, commission, corporation or other body or person that is an agent or servant of His Majesty in right of Canada . . .
I point out that any regulations having legislative effect, even regulations passed by the minister, are required by section 7 of the Regulations Act to be laid before parliament. There is no question about that. It applies not only to orders in council. Regulations, orders and directives made by the minister having legislative effect will have to come before us. The operative effect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops is not to require that these things be brought before us, for we already have that, but to give parliament the right to annul these orders as they come one by one. I submit if we are going to do that to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, much as we might like to clip his wings now and then, we would have to do it to every other minister as well, and that would hardly be consistent with established parliamentary practice.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out to the
minister that under the Essential Materials (Defence) Act there was provision for tabling orders and regulations, not, it is true, in the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kamloops but there is this provision found in section 9:
Every order or regulation made by the governor in council under sections 3. 4 or 10 shall be published forthwith in the Canada Gazette and shall be laid before parliament within ten days after publication thereof, if parliament is then in session, or, if parliament is not then in session, within ten days after the commencement of the next ensuing session thereof.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does the Regulations Act say?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it became law since the Essential Materials (Defence) Act was passed.


Howard Charles Green: If the Regulations Act covers a provision of this kind then of course that is a different matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the fact, yes.


Howard Charles Green: If all the information that
would be given under section 9 of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act will now have to be tabled under the provisions of the Orders and Regulations Act-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The Regulations Act.


Howard Charles Green: -then of course that meets
my argument.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is the reason it was left
out. It was found it duplicated the language of the Regulations Act passed subsequently.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Regulations Act was not
passed subsequently to the Essential Materials (Defence) Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It came into force afterwards.
The Regulations Act came into force after the Essential Materials (Defence) Act was passed, on the first day of January of this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But the Regulations Act does not give parliament any right to express an opinion, to annul or do anything else with respect to the orders and regulations which are laid before it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. We do not
intend to give that right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My understanding is the
minister said that he would have no objection to including such a power in this bill.


Alphonse Fournier: Oh no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was the answer given
to the question asked in the course of the radio broadcast. I notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in spite of the fact that he always says that he wants to get full information and so on, yet when anything is done that would really have the effect of getting it that appears to be not acceptable to the government, he is not very slow in coming to their rescue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of privilege, there is no dispute between myself and the hon. member for Kamloops or between the two of us and the government as to the requirement that all orders and regulations be tabled. We are agreed on that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is this a point of privilege? I
hardly see that there is any privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just do not misinterpret my words.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Actions speak louder than
words, and what I am doing is interpreting the hon. member's actions. Contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, the powers given are in many respects quite as wide as the powers given under the Emergency Powers Act. The hon. member says that was a blank cheque. If there was ever a blank cheque this is a blank cheque to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Before we come to any decision on this matter I want to ask the minister whether it is a fact that he did say on the occasion of that broadcast that he would have no objection to giving parliament the power to annul orders and regulations that come to it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know what I said. I
did not realize I was talking to parliament when I was answering questions in a press conference. I do not know whether or not I said what the hon. member says I did. There was no record of it so far as I was concerned, but in any event the point is that I do not think I need to make a statement. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated the question. We have a Regulations Act which says what shall be tabled in parliament. This is legislation to set up a department of government, which will be like any other department, and I cannot accept the suggestion that any executive act of this department shall be subject to review and repeal by parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister said he did not realize he was speaking to parliament when he spoke at his press conference. No; the minister was speaking to the public.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I thought I was speaking to some reporters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister surely knew his conference was going to be broadcast over a national network. He must have known that was the purpose of the conference.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You mean that was legislation by radio? I understand my hon. friend made quite an impassioned oration about legislation by radio.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I am objecting to is the minister's saying and doing one thing over the radio to the people of Canada and then expressing a different opinion or desire in parliament. That is what I am calling attention to here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, you have called attention to it, so why not have a vote?


Edmund Davie Fulton: If the minister has changed his mind, let us say, I suppose that is his privilege; but I do not think it is a very desirable course to follow in the case of a
Defence Production Act responsible minister who is asking this house to entrust him with very wide powers, which parliament is entitled to assume will be exercised with a degree of consistency that has not been displayed by the minister in the variation between his announcement of two days ago and his attitude in the house this afternoon.
Since this bill came before parliament we have been attempting to bring forward amendments which would make it in the better interests of the Canadian people. If the minister finds the provision that all the administrative orders in his department should be tabled is too wide, would he consent to an amendment which would require the tabling of legislative orders to be done within certain time limit, with the right of parliament to review those orders in council having legislative effect, because many such will be passed under the provisions of this act?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is the committee ready for the question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the minister is ready for the question I asked him. I am ready for the answer.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think I should encourage this one-man filibuster, but the position is that the Regulations Act sets out the rules under which orders and regulations are tabled. The department now being formed will be subject to that legislation, and I can assure my hon. friend that the Regulations Act will be followed with all dispatch and in the spirit of the legislation.


An hon. Member:: You have had your
answer; let us get on.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not think the Minister of Trade and Commerce needs much help from the hon. gentleman who made that interjection. At this late stage I do not suppose there is much point in demonstrating it further, but I want to emphasize that here the minister is asking power to control our economy for five years, and he objects that we are wasting time though we have not had this bill before us for five days.


Alphonse Fournier: Irrelevant to this item.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) apparently does not appreciate the position, so I will try-
The Depuly Chairman: Order. I think the hon. member should keep his remarks as relevant as possible to the section under discussion, which is section 38. He asked a

Defence Production Act question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and he has had a reply. He may not like it, but he has had that reply and I do not think he should pursue that point further.


Edmund Davie Fulton: 
Alphonse Fournier: We generally agree,
but you talk too long.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is because you interrupt so much. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has said that the Regulations Act provides for the tabling of orders in council passed under this bill. That is also true of orders in council which might be passed under the Emergency Powers Act, and I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Justice if they consider that the same arguments apply with respect to legislative orders in council which may be passed under this act as applied to such orders in council passed under the Emergency Powers Act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is no.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the question I am
trying to get at in this amendment. If it is too wide and can be narrowed to cover only orders in council of that kind, and to confer upon parliament the right to deal with those, i would be happy to narrow it down; but I would like to hear from the minister whether ne does not think the same arguments apply.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, I think not. These orders applied to concrete situations and approval of regulations made necessary by circumstances. For instance, the steel order prohibited the use of steel for certain purposes. Suppose parliament overrode the order. That action would require a whole series of orders for other types of steel. You could not carry on under that arrangement. As I say, the people affected have a right to expect some stability, and I would not care to be responsible for administration while parliament was debating whether that order should or should
[The Deputy Chairman.)

not stand. That could happen; my hon. friend could carry on for weeks debating each order as it came out, and he would be likely to do so.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And you could go on administering them; you would not be interfered with.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not think I would care to give my hon. friend that opportunity.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 72.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the section
carry?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 39-Repeal.


Howard Charles Green: There is no provision in this bill for tabling of an annual report by the department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Mr. Chairman, I should be glad to move an amendment now to provide for the tabling of a report if my hon. friend wishes. This is the amendment which I shall ask my colleague to move:
That Bill 77 be amended by renumbering sections 34 to 41 as sections 35 to 42 and inserting immediately after section 33 the following heading and section:
Annual Report
34. The minister shall, before the thirty-first day of March in each year, prepare a report showing the operations of the department during the year last preceding and shall after completion of the report forthwith lay it before parliament, or if parliament is not then sitting, shall lay it before parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of the next ensuing session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I move accordingly.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that there will be a report filed next year, even though there will not have been a full year intervening?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, that is the intention.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 40 agreed to.
On section 41-Expiration.
Howard Charles Green: We have an amendment to move to section 41. It reads as follows:
That Bill 77 be amended by substituting for "fifty-six" in section 41 thereof, the word "fifty-four."
The effect of that would be to cut the life of the act from five to three years. In other words, it would continue in effect only until 1954. This is an extremely important bill giving wide powers, in fact giving wider powers than were given to the munitions and ' supply department during the last war. These

powers are to be given, although the government itself has taken the position in other legislation that we are in what we might call a twilight era and not in an all-out war period. Because of the nature of the powers given, and because this department is a temporary one, we believe that parliament should have an opportunity in three years rather than in five to consider these powers again. We are asking, therefore, that the time limit be cut from five years to three.
I would point out to the members that in the Essential Materials (Defence) Act which was passed last September there was a time limit of a little less than two years; that act was to expire on July 31, 1952. The present bill absorbs all the provisions of the Essential Materials (Defence) Act, and even with my amendment those provisions would be in effect until 1954, which is two years longer than the time provided by the bill last year.
The Emergency Powers Act, which received third reading a day or two ago, contains a time limit which continues it in effect only until May 31, 1952. Then another act called the Export and Import Permits Act, which was introduced in the Senate the other day, contained a five-year life provision, as does this bill, but that time was cut by the other house from five years to three. I believe the other house was sound in making that reduction, primarily for the purpose of enabling parliament to have something to say about these powers at an earlier date.
I hope the government will not object to cutting this time from five years to three. Incidentally, the same time limit was contained in the munitions and supply act. When it was introduced at the outbreak of the last war it contained a time limit which, even though we were at war, was approximately three years. Subsequently, the time limit was lifted. I do submit that under present conditions it is reasonable that the time limit on this act should be three years. It could be extended at the endi of that time if thought necessary. We all hope that by that time the crisis will be over and the need for a bill of this type will have passed. Certainly, parliament should have the opportunity, not later than 1954, to review a bill of this kind, and for that reason we propose this amendment.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that we are undertaking a three-year program. This is a bill to set up a department of government.


Howard Charles Green: So was the munitions and
supply act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps it was, but we are learning from experience. We thought then that
Defence Production Act the war might be over in less than three years, we thought it might be over in one year. We have a definite three-year program before us. Experience tell me that at least another two years would be required to liquidate that program should it end after the three-year period. The five years is needed. I know my hon. friend likes the forum and likes to debate, but I do not. I find I have other things to do.


Howard Charles Green: I hope the minister was not referring to me, because there is nothing I like less than debating.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not see why my hon. friend is not prepared to withdraw his amendment, because he and I are on common ground. A great deal of thought was given to the period that should be provided for this department, and it was felt that five years was the shortest passage of time to allow the department to carry out the program that is now envisaged by the government.
The Depuiy Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, Mr. Chairman, will you call it six o'clock. I want to say a word! about this matter.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: At six o'clock the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was suggesting to the committee that the term of this Bill No. 77 be reduced from five years to three years. In effect the minister's reply was that the program of the Department of National Defence, which the Department of Defence Production is to work out, was for three years, and that they reckoned it would take us another two years to liquidate it, as he described it. I think that was his word. Therefore he suggested a five-year term for the act.
If in fact we were able to count confidently now that it would be a three-year program for the defence department, and that that would be the end of it, and that it would take them two years to liquidate it, I am inclined to think I would look on the matter very differently indeed; but of course we know that is not the situation at all; that it would really be beyond our hopes that in three years our national defence program would be terminated and then we could proceed to the liquidation. My feeling therefore is that this reason for the suggestion of five years falls to the ground, and that we

Defence Production Act should look at the thing not from that point of view, because that to me is very unconvincing, but on its merits. I have this suggestion to make to the minister.
There is no magic in five years, and there is no magic in three years. I do not pretend there is, but I do suggest that three years would be a not unnatural time, because the national defence program runs to that time. I would also put this to the minister. It is astonishing how quickly the abnormal becomes the normal; and as we go on debating the clauses of a bill of this kind, almost in spite of ourselves we slip into the feeling that after all it is not so very unusual. But after all, it is an extraordinary thing that we should give this amazing arbitrary power to one man. I shall relieve the minister's feelings by saying I shall not repent my views. He is not interested in my views on this subject, and has heard them often enough before, and I do not intend to dwell on them. But I do suggest this, that we might remind ourselves that from the point of view of many of us, and perhaps far more than will ever speak on this bill, these arbitrary powers are something that we view with the greatest possible regret.
Therefore I suggest to the minister that It might be a reasonable concession to those who take a view so different from his own, if this concession of two years were made.
The minister expressed some impatience, not in a very impatient way, this afternoon, that we had spent five days-I think they were very short days-discussing this bill. I can assure the minister that if some of us had discussed this bill according to the repugnance we feel as regards matters of this kind, it would not take five days, it would take five weeks. Therefore I appeal to the minister for this concession. After all, if three years from now the situation warrants it we can extend it. If the situation is as it is now we no doubt will extend it. Therefore it seems no harm would be suffered, and in the opinion of some of us it would be just that much less unpalatable.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry that my hon. friend feels so great a repugnance toward this bill. I would remind him that a bill in similar terms allowed Canada to do a very creditable war effort not so many years ago. I see nothing that need concern my hon. friend so deeply. I thought he was going to suggest a compromise. Had he done so, I would have said it was the first reasonable suggestion I had heard from that side since we started to discuss the bill, and I might have taken it. But since he insists on three years, I must say, Mr. Chairman, I insist on five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you mean you would accept four?


Howard Charles Green: If the minister would accept four it would be all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is too late now.
Amendment negatived. -


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Louis-René Beaudoin: We shall now
revert to the clauses that were stood over, namely, clauses 9, 16 and 36.
On section 9-Administration of department under the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have an amendment to suggest to section 9 which I shall ask one of my colleagues to move. It is as follows:
That subsection (2) of section 9 of Bill No. 77 be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"(2) The minister shall have exclusive authority to buy or otherwise acquire defence supplies and construct defence projects required by the Department of National Defence, except
(a)	defence projects to be constructed by persons in the employ of His Majesty; and
(b)	such defence supplies or defence projects as the Minister of National Defence or any other minister designated by the governor in council may procure or construct at the request of the minister."


Alphonse Fournier: I so move.


Howard Charles Green: I do not quite understand the last paragraph of subsection 2 where it says: ... as the Minister of National Defence or any other minister designated by the governor in council may procure or construct at the request of the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The reason that the JVEinister of National Defence is named is that it is often convenient to have certain limited appropriations at the disposal of a local armed services unit, such as for Suffield. The unit may want the privilege of having say $500 a month to buy fresh vegetables, or for small supplies. The reason another minister is named is that another branch of the government might conveniently carry out some part of the defence program and the minister might wish to ask them to accept that responsibility. For example, housing might well go to the Minister of Resources and Development.


Howard Charles Green: That is, the request would come from the Minister of Defence Production to the Minister of National Defence?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes; and this provides that any other minister would have to be designated for the purpose by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
On section 16-Defence production revolv- Mr. Green: It is the same, but in other ing fund.	words.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: There is a suggestion I have to make here. I quite realize-indeed I always did realize-there must be a revolving fund. My only aim was to see that as much information should come as quickly as possible to parliament, and I wonder whether the minister would agree to this suggestion, that there might be made available and laid on the table monthly statements of the operations under section 16, that is to say the incomings and outgoings under subsection 2 (a) and subsection 3 of the same section.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The figures would necessarily be very vague. They would show that the fund had paid out, we will say, X million dollars and had received, in the month in question, Y million dollars. Obviously, we could not say what the money had been spent for, nor could we say from where the receipts had been received. They would be perfectly meaningless figures.
It seems to me the same purpose would be accomplished by an hon. member asking for figures any time he wished to do so. I do not like to ask for the passage of a law or statute in parliament which states that I am to table figures which would be meaningless. If they meant anything I would not object to tabling them, always, of course, giving consideration to security matters. However if someone wants figures and asks for them, I shall be glad to table them the next day. I think the hon. member will appreciate the difficulty.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister mean that he could not give the details for security reasons?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is it, exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 36-No action lies against controller or investigator.
Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the difficulty in this section can be settled by the amendment I shall ask my colleague to move.


Alphonse Fournier: I move:
That clause 36 be amended by adding thereto the following:
"but nothing in this section limits or restricts the rights of any person against the crown."


Louis-René Beaudoin: It will be noted that section 36 has been renumbered as section 37.


Howard Charles Green: That, in effect, is the amendment we suggested, is it not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As a matter of fact, it is quite different from the amendment the hon. member suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Howard Charles Green: Next sitting.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the second reading of Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 5 proposes three amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935. The first amendment corrects an error in section 20. In this section reference is made to the "thirty-first day of August". The amendment corrects this date to the "first day of August", as was intended.
The other two amendments are proposed as a result of experience in the operation of the Canadian wheat board over the years.
Under the act as it now stands, any increase in the initial payment for wheat, oats, and barley made during a pool period or crop year must be equal for all grades. A situation could arise in which it might be possible to increase the initial payment for certain grades of wheat, oats or barley to a greater extent than for other grades of the same grain. This amendment is designed to give the governor in council some latitude in adjusting initial payments within the crop year as between grades. I do not anticipate that the powers asked for in this amendment would be used in a year of normal production. On the other hand, I believe that the amendment, if enacted, will be useful in the event of a crop in which there are not only wide variations among the grades, but wide variations in the demand for particular grades as well. The proposed amendment is intended to meet such a contingency, rather than to alter procedures followed in a normal crop year.
The third amendment is the most important of the three. It proposes a means by which annual pools may be wound up promptly. Occasions have arisen in the past when the board has been operating two or more pool accounts at the same time. The procedure in these cases has been to divide sales between the pools. This means that the winding up of a particular pool takes an

Canadian Wheat Board Act unreasonable length of time. The amendment gives the governor in council power to authorize the transfer of unsold grain from one pool account to the next pool account for the purpose of winding up the earlier account and permitting a final payment as soon as possible after the end of each crop year.
The amendment contemplates a careful valuation of the inventory to be transferred, with the principle in mind that the later pool should neither gain nor lose because of the unsold grain transferred to it. In actual practice it may not be possible to eliminate all risk to the pools concerned. I believe that the house will agree, however, that the proposed method is preferable to holding up the final settlement with producers under each pool until such time as the last of the grain in that pool has been sold.
I have now covered all the matters concerning Bill No. 5, but I am sure the hon. members would wish me to take this occasion to review the current developments in the board's operations.
I shall not discuss the 1945-49 pool account at this time, as it will be the subject of special legislation to be brought down shortly. I might say just this, however, for the information of hon. members, that the annual report of the board has now been completed in Winnipeg and has been laid on the table of the house at an earlier sitting. The report contains the accounts covering the 1945-49 pool wheat, the last of which wheat was disposed of in December, 1950.
We are going through a most unusual experience in the marketing of wheat this year. The unusual circumstances arise largely from the lateness of the 1950 harvest and from the extensive damage to quality sustained by nearly one-half the crop due to the frosts last August.
The lateness of the 1950 harvest reduced the volume of shipments from country elevators to the lakehead before the close of navigation and made the transportation of grain an acute and continuing problem for the remainder of the crop year 1950-51. Because of the late harvest, some 37,000 fewer cars of grain were loaded in the prairie provinces from August 1 to December 1, 1950, than were loaded the corresponding period a year ago, despite the fact that the railways loaded cars in the country at about the same rate as last year once the 1950 crop started to move. In recent weeks the loadings have been exceeding last year's levels.
In marketing the 1950 wheat crop, the Canadian wheat board is carrying on two distinct operations, the one having to do with milling wheat, the other with the lower grades. As a result of the frost damage and

unfavourable harvesting weather, less than one-third of the 1950 crop will fall into the grades Nos. 1, 2 and 3 northern, which are the standard milling grades normally constituting the bulk of the prairie wheat crop. Fortunately we had a carry-over of about 99 million bushels of wheat on July 31 last, principally of the grade No. 2 northern. In addition, No. 4 northern wheat this year has been a useful milling grade both in the domestic market and for export. Even allowing for these factors, our supplies of milling grades of wheat are not adequate to meet the demand this year. In selling the milling grades, the board's problem is one of securing adequate transportation both by rail and by inland water routes to meet domestic and export commitments.
I might add that Alberta marketings of wheat show a high percentage of milling grades, and as a result the board is working on a maximum export program through Pacific coast ports, which will continue for the balance of the crop year.
With respect to low-grade wheat, the situation is very different. Because of the damage sustained in 1950, the board is faced with the task of shipping and selling over 150 million bushels of grades not normally used for milling purposes. Fortunately, the largest individual grade among the lower grades is No. 5 wheat, for which there has been an overseas demand. No. 6 wheat and feed wheat are being sold in some volume to the United States where such wheat can enter on the -basis of a five per cent ad valorem duty, provided that the sample is considered unfit for human consumption. The disposal of such a large quantity of low-grade wheat will take considerably more time than that required for the selling of the limited supplies of milling grades, but progress is being made.
I should also note a third circumstance. As a result of the wet harvesting weather a considerable quantity of grain had an unusually high moisture content on delivery to country elevators and is grading tough and damp. The existence of so much grain with a high moisture content has had the effect of reducing the effective capacity of country elevators and lakehead terminals. I hope it will be possible to find storage for stocks of tough and damp grain remaining on farms, as well as terminal accommodation for the tough and damp stocks still in country elevators, before warm weather sets in. The wheat board and the board of grain commissioners are co-operating to that end. I might add that damp grain has been given first preference in transportation throughout the crop year, and the shipment of tough

Canadian Wheat Board Act
grain of the lower grades has only been limited by the essential requirements of the board for milling grades which include the toughs of these grades.
From October 1 to date about 36,000 cars of tough and damp grain have been inspected. These inspections represent about 33 per cent of total cars inspected during the period. Thus, the shipment of tough and damp grain has received a substantial percentage of cars available for country loadings. Late in January, because of congestion at the lakehead, the board issued instructions limiting shipments of grain to the lakehead to damp grain. Recently it has been possible to amend this restriction to allow high-moisture tough grades to be moved as well.
Terminal elevators at the lakehead have had a free hand in drying damp grain and are keeping abreast with arrivals. Tough grain is being dried as required by the board. Although some 65 million bushels of tough and damp grain have been inspected, it is difficult to estimate the amount still to be shipped. While the problem is undoubtedly a diminishing one, it will continue for some time yet.
Under all these circumstances the Canadian wheat board has endeavoured to follow a balanced shipping policy. It has endeavoured to move forward sufficient high-grade wheat, including toughs and damps of these grades, to take care of moderate export commitments. This has left considerable latitude for the shipment of low-grade grain including the toughs and damps of these grades. The board felt, and I think for good reason, that in spite of the special problems arising from the large volume of low-grade wheat produced in the west this year, and from the volume of tough and damp grain, that a reasonable effort should be made to get on with the marketing of that half of the crop consisting of milling grades.
The board has made good progress in disposing of milling grades of wheat arising from the carry-over from the 1949 crop and from the 1950 crop. Commitments have been made rot only for stocks which have arrived in selling positions, but for stocks which will be shipped from country elevators during the balance of the crop year.
For transportation reasons, sales of wheat of lower grades are not so far advanced, but sufficient sales had been made to give the board confidence in its selling prices for No. 5, No. 6 and feed wheat. By the end of last December it was apparent that wheat of milling grades would be sold at the international wheat agreement maximum price.
With this situation in mind, the board and the government considered it practicable to
increase the initial payment on all grades of wheat by 20 cents per bushel. As hon. members are aware, this increase became effective on February 1. Between August 1, 1950, and January 31, 1951, producers had marketed about 256 million bushels of wheat, upon which an adjustment payment of 20 cents per bushel is about to be made. If the 1950-51 wheat account shows a surplus when all wheat is sold, there will be a final payment to producers. Because of existing good export demand there is reason to believe that there will be a final payment on all grades.
Earlier in the crop year the board felt that it would take perhaps twenty-four months to transport and sell the large volume of low-grade wheat harvested this year. Without minimizing the difficulties ahead in transporting and selling such a large volume of low-grade wheat, the board is now more optimistic.
The movement of oats and barley, for the reasons I have outlined, has been somewhat slower than in the previous crop year but, as in the case of wheat, the board had made good progress in selling both grains by the end of December. In January 1951, the board recommended, and the government approved, an increase in the initial payment on oats of 10 cents per bushel and an increase in the initial payment on barley of 20 cents per bushel, both increases becoming effective on February 1, 1951. Up to the end of January producers had marketed about 59 million bushels of oats and 58 million bushels of barley, against which adjustment payments of 10 cents per bushel and 20 cents per bushel respectively are about to be made. Any surplus in the 1950-51 oats and barley pools at the close of operations will, of course, be paid to producers in final payments.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, in
rising to take part in a discussion on the second reading of this bill I must say that I have listened attentively to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and in some respects I am bound to agree with the reasons he has set forth for an amendment to the act to cover the crop year and to include wheat, oats and barley.
Legislation of this kind has been requested by several speakers in this house on previous occasions. The minister has pointed out the difficulties that were encountered this year as a result of frost, as a result of bad weather for harvesting and as a result of the trouble encountered in moving the grain that was harvested. In fact, some of the crop is still lying in the fields unharvested at this time. The minister pointed out that all this had created great hardship and it was essential that provision be made to wind up the pool
1054

Canadian Wheat Board Act at the end of the year which, as he stated, would be the end of next July or following August 1, 1951.
This legislation will not be of any benefit whatever to anybody until after that date, but it will be most essential following that date. For those reasons, so very well set forth by the minister, it will certainly be essential in another five months or so to have an amendment such as he has proposed to take care of that matter. There are some other matters with respect to the wheat board act that I should like to discuss at this time. First of all I should like to make some reference to the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. As will be realized by those who have been here for some years and who have followed the activities of the wheat board, this agreement was brought into being by an order in council under the War Measures Act in July, 1946. Parliament never at any time had an opportunity to vote on the agreement as such.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is it the understanding of the house that discussion of that agreement is to take place at this time? I do not want to stop the hon. member from discussing it if other hon. members are to do so. If it is agreed that discussion of that agreement can take place now I will allow the hon. member to continue.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think it is difficult in a discussion about wheat to avoid discussing the five-year pool. I have no objections.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason I interrupted the hon. member was that I thought the matter should be decided now.


James Arthur Ross: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I intend to confine my remarks pretty much to the act itself, and I am led to believe that one of the other ministers might like to make a very broad statement during this discussion.


Mr. Gardiner:: I do not know how broad it will be.


James Arthur Ross: An amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act of 1935 was passed during 1947 providing for the five-year wheat pool, 1945 to 1950. It was retroactive legislation. Members of this party proposed an amendment to the legislation creating the five-year pool, and we were voted down at that time by the supporters of the government. The U.K.-Canada contract went into effect on August 1, 1946. Farmers were compelled to sell 160 million bushels of wheat to the United Kingdom in each of the crop years 1946-47 and 1947-48 at $1.55 a bushel. The price for 140 million bushels in each of the two following years


was to be fixed by negotiation under clause 2(b). The price for 1948-49 and 1949-50 crops was fixed at $2 which recovered none of the loss on the first two years of the contract. In fact the price was much over $2 when that price was negotiated and .greed upon.
On the most conservative estimate the farmers of western Canada lost $330 million in the first two years of the contract. In fact I can break that down into separate years. If anybody cares to check the report made by the then minister of trade and commerce, to be found at page 6020 of Hansard for July 17, 1947, the loss estimated by him was 77 cents per bushel or a total of $123,200,000 on the first year. On the same basis there was a loss of $207 million for the second year making in round figures a total for those two years of just over $330 million. I think these figures should be compared with a portion of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in this house on March 2, to be found at page 833 of Hansard. He was announcing -the final settlement of the five-year pool, and at that time he said:
The contribution ... is the equivalent of about 23 cents per bushel on the deliveries made during the last two years of the agreement to which article 2(b) had reference, that Is, the $65 million contribution.
You will see that his statement completely ignored the first two years of the contract. At the time he made the statement it was very confusing to me. It has certainly been confusing to certain provincial ministers of agriculture judging from reports I have read of what they have had to say in their legislatures. Why the Prime Minister worded his statement that way I do not know. It is very interesting to study clause 2 (b) carefully, what actually happened in the first two years, and the Prime Minister's statement.
On the entire contract the loss is estimated at close to $500 million. Because of this wheat agreement the domestic price of wheat in Canada was held down to the level of the agreement. After September, 1946, when other producers and wage earners were freed of controls and able to charge all that the market would bear, the wheat farmers were lashed to an improvident agreement which compelled them to subsidize every bread consumer in Canada. In my opinion there was no shadow of justice in this policy. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) discussed the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement on August 14, 1946. I do not think I need to remind the house that he was the minister who a month previously had negotiated the agreement on behalf of the government generally and on behalf of the then

minister of trade and commerce. As appears at page 4810 of Hansard of August 14, 1946, he said:
When we are at the end of the four-year period, if in the last six or twelve months we find ourselves in the position that world markets, so-called, are not offering as much for wheat as we are getting for it, I hope people will stand behind us to the extent they are standing behind us now. Even if wheat stays above $1.55 during the whole period, I hope people will still feel that it was worth while trying. If we are successful in this experiment, then we can talk to the grain trade people with some assurance. If they are able to show us at the end of the five-year period that we were all wrong, that over that length of time the farmer got less than he ever got before under similar circumstances and that the other system would have brought him more, then we shall be in a position to discuss the matter with them on an even footing. I am sure anyone who has taken this position and finds himself wrong will be quite prepared to discuss it from that point of view. In the meantime we are convinced that this is the best thing for the farmer. As long as we are convinced of that, and having another four years in which to try it out, we can put the policy into effect in a way that will at least help us to determine how this long argument between farmer and grain trade in western Canada ought to be settled in the interests of the great masses of the people.
On August 15, 1946, at page 4848 of Hansard, the minister put on record in detail the terms of the contract. I should like to refer to one of the paragraphs, and I would ask hon. members to follow this very carefully because it has reference to the previous statement I made about negotiations in the third year of the contract. The paragraph reads in parts as follows:
In determining the prices for these two crop years, 1848-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years,
I have already pointed out that in the first two years it is estimated there was a loss of at least $330 million. During November, 1947, Canadian class II wheat was quoted at $3.45 per bushel. I have already mentioned the loss under the "have regard to" clause in the first two years, and I think any legal person would say that is what it had reference to. During the discussions at that time Mr. John Bracken was with us in the house, and there was quite a discussion for a few days. I think it is only right that the words of Mr. Bracken, who warned of this very thing, should be remembered now. In August, 1946, he spoke in this house about wheat marketing policies, and said that selling our wheat at below market prices to one country was either a gift or an improvident trade arrangement. If it was a gift, then it was not fair that western farmers should make the whole contributions. I have already pointed out that this loss is estimated at
80709-68i
Canadian Wheat Board Act $500 million. At that time Mr. Bracken said it was a bad bargain because it would create friction between Great Britain and Canada. I wonder what the people in this country think of that now, after the last two or three days. He went on to say that if in two or three years the world price of wheat was low and Britain did not come through with a higher price, we would feel that she was reneging on the agreement. Now I think he has been proved correct. In gambling on the British market under that contract we have lost the market to other nations.
I think every westerner should know that at the time Mr. Bracken made his speech in the house he was heckled by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and Mr. Tucker, then a member from Saskatchewan. Mr. Bracken asked Mr. Tucker if he thought Britain would pay any more for the wheat at the end of the contract. Mr. Tucker replied: "If I got wheat part of the time at below the world price, I would expect to pay more when the world price went below what the agreement called for". The leader of the C.C.F. party accused Mr. Bracken of using the word "renege" and Mr. Bracken replied that in this agreement there was no assurance Britain would pay any more than the world price later on. So we had the picture of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and Mr. Tucker speaking for their parties and selling the Canadian wheat producer down the river. At that time, as I say, Mr. Tucker was a federal member, and at present is engaged in another field of public service.
We had quite a discussion of another amendment to the act on June 5, 1950. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was reporting on a trip he had made to Great Britain. There were quite a few exchanges and I am quoted as having said, at page 3222 of Hansard:
The Minister of Agriculture and the then prime minister repeatedly stated that the farmers who were making those sacrifices would have that taken into account for many years following the war. However, I take it there is to be no further settlement expected from Britain under that contract?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct-
It is rather significant also, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) visited Britain very recently, that within the last few days a question should be asked in the British house as to whether there might be any further settlement under this contract by Britain. The answer given by Mr. Gaitskell was, "No. This matter was thoroughly discussed last summer, and a settlement arrived at." So that policy has not been changed. Then during January the Minister of Agriculture was in the west, and at tiie meeting of the federation of agriculture

Canadian Wheat Board Act in Calgary was reported in the press as having said that wheat payment negotiations were being reopened. He is reported as having said that before he left Ottawa he and the Prime Minister had agreed that he should make the statement at that time. Under clause 2 (b) of the four-year wheat contract now terminated, he said, Britain had agreed that there should be an adjustment; but during the parliamentary session last summer the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said that Britain considered the matter closed. That was from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 24, of this year. I think that is very significant. And it is strange that just one year ago today in this house the right hon. Minister of Agriculture should have said, as reported on page 569 of Hansard:
What I wish to say to this house, and through this house to the country, is that the Prime Minister stated to the farmers that it was decided1 during the first discussion that every dollar the wheat pool was entitled to as a result of the British agreement would be paid into the pool by the end of this crop year, on the basis on which the British agreement called for the deliveries, and that therefore there would be no possibility whatsoever of any loss being taken by the farmers of western Canada as a result of that exchange. The money will be paid into the pool by the government of Canada and any loss which is taken-if any loss is taken; and we do not expect that there will be any-would naturally be taken by the treasury or by a settlement that we get from the British under the "have regard" clause rather than by the farmers themselves. I thought it was necessary that that matter be cleared away at this time in order that we may avoid discussion of the idea in the future.
Remember that the end of the crop year to which he referred was July 31, 1950. As I have pointed out already, during November of 1947 Canadian class II wheat was quoted at $3.45 per bushel. That was during the early part of the second year of the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement. According to the speech of the Minister of Agriculture which I have just quoted and the announcement of the Prime Minister regarding the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool, as reported on page 833 of Hansard for March 2, 1951, there seems to be no intention on the part of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture or this government to carry into effect the promises I have already quoted. This is very disappointing to a great many people in the country.
It now becomes apparent that the government and the Liberal party will attempt to place the entire blame on the British government. Certainly Mr. Wesson of Saskatchewan, upon whom the Minister of Agriculture relied so much, is already doing this, and I think it is rather unfortunate.


Some hon. Members:: Unfair.


James Arthur Ross: Yes, very unfair and very unfortunate. And I am surprised that after the many times I have heard the minister tell us that our best market for wheat and many other agricultural products was Great Britain, he or the pools or anyone else should attempt to create a rift between Great Britain and the people of this country. In that regard there is quite an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 22, 1951, headed "Hard Facts" and reading:
In the British House of Commons on December 11, 1946, Mr. Strachey, then minister of food for the U.K., said this:
"We buy agricultural products at the lowest price we can get them in the world and if we deviated from that policy I am sure the house would censure us very severely indeed."
Again, on February 3, 1947, Mr. Strachey, still minister of food, replied to a questioner as follows:
"In fact we pay the best price, being the lowest, that we can pay in the circumstances."
His reference, of course, was to the purchase of foods.
And further on:
And now, more recently, on September 19, 1950, the present minister of food, Right Hon. Maurice Webb was asked in the British House of Commons if he would "offer preferential prices to producers in the British commonwealth and empire." He replied in the negative.
"The question," he said, "of giving any form of preference under these contracts to commonwealth producers does not arise because I am still bound to obtain as much as I can of these commodities at reasonable prices from all sources and in any case bulk purchase contracts must be based primarily on commercial considerations."
There is, of course, not the slightest ground for criticism of the United Kingdom in these quotations. It is not only right and proper but inevitable that the U.K. should buy as cheaply as possible. That is the job of British traders, and they are very good at it. If they failed, they would undoubtedly deserve and receive very severe censure.
I think that has quite a comparative meaning to this agreement and the situation in which we, unfortunately, find ourselves. During this period the cost of production in Canada has increased a great deal. Certain farm implements have increased over sixty per cent; discriminatory freight rates have increased twenty-two per cent; and the cost of living rose twelve points during the last year, 1950. Last month it made the greatest increase of any month in the history of Canada, being at an all-time high of 175-2, and still increasing rapidly. At the same time the price of wheat has been substantially reduced by order of this government.
When I refer to that, may I remind the members that this year's price is $1.60 basis Fort William. The purchasing value of a bushel of wheat today on the basis of the 1939 dollar and the dollar of today is approximately 75 cents. That is all the purchasing

Canadian Wheat Board Act
value there is in a bushel of wheat at the price which the government has set for this year.


James Garfield Gardiner: There is no price set for
this year.


James Arthur Ross: For the 1950-51 crop?


James Garfield Gardiner: No. There is an initial price of $1.60, but that is quite a different thing.


James Arthur Ross: Then the initial price
has that purchasing value, Mr. Speaker. During 1950 the income of the Canadian farmer was reduced by over 12 per cent; that is the type of stability the farmers have been guaranteed. I have heard some of my hon. friends close to me cite this agreement in the past, and even during this session, as evidence of the type of stability guaranteed to the farmers. How much longer the farmers of Canada can carry on under this type of stability I would not have any idea. The Canadian farmer has a just grievance, and that includes the dairy producer, cheese producer, hog producer, poultry, potato, fruit and other agricultural producers. The coarse grains which many of these producers would use, Mr. Speaker, came under this act, and they have a just grievance.
I should like to refer some of the members to an article appearing in the Winnipeg Tribune of Tuesday, March 6. I am not going to quote that article because some of it might not be in order at this time. I would ask hon. members to look it up on the editorial page, and it is entitled "These American Prices". Just to quote a few of the items mentioned we find sugar, 10 pounds, Minneapolis, $1.01 and Winnipeg $1.40; T-bone steak, per pound, 79 cents in Minneapolis and 89 cents in Winnipeg; pork tenderloin, $.70 per pound in Minneapolis and $1.05 in Winnipeg; milk, 2 quarts, 33 cents in Minneapolis and 34 cents in Winnipeg. Mention is made of canned applesauce to which there was a reference in the house the other day. Eggs, grade A large, 52 cents a dozen in Minneapolis and 55 in Winnipeg. Many people imagine that the cost of living is considerably higher in the United States than it is in Canada. Minneapolis and Winnipeg are comparative cities. It is quite evident that the housewife, either on the farm or in an urban centre, can procure her supplies in the United States for less money than she *can in Canada. I believe that fact is pertinent to the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day in connection with another measure to the effect that the business people were set for price controls. I do not know how the people, even on the farms and in the urban centres, are able to properly provide for a growing family. It is extremely difficult.
In view of the fact that, as I have already pointed out, this measure will not be of any effect in Canada, that is this Bill No. 5 which we are now considering, until August next, and we are only now starting this session, I should like to move, seconded by the member for Brant-Wentworth (Mr. Charlton):
That this bill be not now read a second time but that further consideration thereof be deferred until this house has had an opportunity to record its opinion on the government's announced decision with respect to the final settlement of the five-year wheat pool and on the government's mishandling of the sale of wheat and1 other grains covered by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
I have just about completed my remarks, Mr. Speaker. We have had a great many discussions about the grain trade in this country, and we have heard many comments and arguments about gambling with our grain. I want to say that nothing I have been able to read in the histories of the various countries throughout the world would indicate a greater gamble taken by any government than was taken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) on behalf of this government, and on behalf of the then minister of trade and commerce, when he undertook to gamble on 600 million bushels of wheat for future delivery over four years. The greater part of it had not even been seeded. I believe that was a terrific gamble for the producers of wheat, and if you are to believe the contract, it was at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers as well as the producer. I believe the government has a great responsibility with respect to this matter. I believe we should keep that in mind when we are considering future markets. On another occasion I pointed out, and it has a bearing here, that I thought there should be a thorough investigation-I say so in the face of the speech made by the hon. gentleman in discussing this matter in 1946-by a royal inquiry into the marketing, transportation, grading and storage of grain in this country and abroad.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I should like to thank the member for Souris (Mr. Ross) for having selected the quotation from my speech in 1946 which he did select. We were then at the beginning of a four-year contract, and we are now dealing with the last act associated with that four-year contract. I would wish for no better starting point from which to discuss what has happened in the period in between than the statement which was quoted from my speech in 1946.


James Arthur Ross: I try to be helpful.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not need much help, but I accept it thankfully. The statement

Canadian Wheat Board Act which was then made was to the effect that we were starting on an experiment, and no one had any right to consider it anything other than an experiment. We were hopeful that that experiment would give us some guidance in dealing with a question which had been discussed over a long period of years in western Canada, and in this house as well. I recall that the constituency which I now represent in this house was represented in 1896 by a gentleman, Dr. Douglas, who introduced the first Manitoba Grain Act into this house. He was here as a patron of industry, the name under which the farm movement of his day operated; and he brought into this house a bill, a private member's bill, which he thought should be passed by the house, to deal with the marketing of wheat on the Winnipeg grain exchange. He had the same experience as private members have here at the present time, Mr. Speaker. He had his bill talked out the first time he brought it in. Then he brought it in the next year, and it received second reading, but it did not get any further than that. Then he had the experience which not many of the private members have who introduce bills in this house. The next year his bill was taken by the government of Canada and presented to this house by the government as the first Manitoba Grain Act, and placed upon the statutes of Canada. From that time till now the marketing and transportation of wheat in Canada has been largely regulated by the operations of that act as it has been amended from time to time.
We finally gave it a new name and called it the Canada Grain Act, but in all of its essential features it is the same act. So tonight I rather appreciate the opportunity of standing here at the end of fifty years' experience under that legislation to speak in favour of what the reoresentative of the constituency I now represent thought would be a good thing for the farmers of western Canada over fifty years ago.
I represent the constituency which was represented by another great farm leader of western Canada, the Hon. W. R. Motherwell. He, in 1900, organized the old territorial grain growers association. He and Dr. Douglas, who was the member that I spoke of a few moments ago, had campaigned up and down the section of western Canada which grows wheat, against the operations of the Winnipeg grain exchange, and against the operations of the railway which at that time controlled the shipment of grain to the detriment of the farm population in so far as its handling was concerned, although to their benefit in the fact that it got it away from the wheat fields to some place where it could be consumed.
But Mr. Motherwell in his day became the advocate of the formation of great co-operative organizations of farmers, which would replace the companies, if necessary, which had been handling grain in previous years, but not so much to replace them as to regulate them. And so we had set up as early as 1910 in western Canada the Co-operative Elevator Company, which was established- the first one in the province of Saskatchewan -under the leadership of the Hon. W. R. Motherwell.
Following that experience we had elevator organizations of a kind set up in the provinces on either side of us. At that time there was a Conservative government in Manitoba, and that Conservative government thought that the kind of system of elevators that they ought to have there in which to handle the grain of their province was a government-owned system, and the Roblin government established the government-owned system of elevators. They took over all the elevators in Manitoba and operated them as a government system. We in the province of Saskatchewan refused to establish a government system of elevators, but we did establish a co-operative system. May I repeat, our objective in establishing the co-operative system away back at that time was to avoid the establishment of the government system, in other words, to avoid setting up, even at that early date, of what is now known as state socialism.
The Liberal party of that day, taking that position, established in western Canada the co-operative elevator system which eventually became the pools of the present day. I wanted to give that little bit of history of the development of the systems.


Mr. Wright:: I always understood that it was the farmers of the west who built the cooperative elevator system in western Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend said it was the farmers. Yes, the farmers always do good things under the leadership of the Liberal party; and, incidentally, Mr. Speaker, they like to be led by the Liberal party. As a matter of fact, now that my hon. friend has raised the question, he knows that the government of the day advanced 85 per cent of the total cost of the building of the elevators. They trusted the farmers of Saskatchewan to pay the money back, and the farmers of Saskatchewan did pay the money back, and in the end owned their elevator system, and do own it today.
That system has resulted in half the grain that is grown in Saskatchewan being handled by the pool elevator companies, and the other half is handled by the line elevator companies, I recite that fact in order to say,

Mr. Speaker, that it never was intended the system set up by the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan, and later on in the other provinces, was going to drive out of business the private dealers in grain in western Canada. It was intended that they, by handling a certain percentage of grain, preferably about half of it, would so regulate the handling of it that all others who entered the trade would be required to handle the grain in pretty much the same manner. And that has gone on from that day down to this.
We make all kinds of claims, which I am not going to take the trouble to make here tonight, as to what the result of the inauguration of the policy has been; but I recite this in order to repeat that the farmers of western Canada have absolute confidence in the cooperative organizations that they set up to handle their grain, and there is no kind of argument that is going to be put up by anyone in this house to the effect that somebody has lost a lot of money that is going to change the attitude of the farmers of western Canada toward the system that they themselves have set up. They are going to operate under that system, and anyone making speeches from this house with the idea that he is going to encourage some change by saying that the farmers have lost $300 million or $600 million, as the notion takes him when he is speaking, is wasting his time. I just want to say to them that they had better talk with some of the farmers in western Canada before making such speeches because there is nobody in western Canada that believes them,


James Arthur Ross: Quite a lot of them. That is pretty wild.


Mr. Rowe:: You have got them pretty well trained.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend says: "That is pretty wild." I think I talk to as many farmers in western Canada as anyone.


William Earl Rowe: You must have.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I know what they are thinking. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives on the other side of the house ought to know what they are thinking, and particularly in the province of Saskatchewan. We think we know pretty well, and I believe we do. It was suggested a few minutes ago that I would probably be making a broad statement on the five year contract-the four year contract.


James Arthur Ross: Or the five year pool.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, or the five year pool. Well, I am going to make a statement on it. I do not know whether my hon. friend will consider it broad, after I have finished. Nevertheless it will have the facts in it, and it will be broad enough to cover most of them.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
But before proceeding to deal with it I would like to say that the handling of wheat over the last five years has resulted in the setting up of a lot of ten-digit figures. I hope the house will permit me to use only the round figures in what I am going to say tonight and, at the same time, will agree that since I am going to hand all the figures I use to Hansard, that the long, ten-digit figures can be put into Hansard, without my repeating all the digits in those figures.
It should be noted that two different policies announced by the government are involved in the announcement that $65 million is to be paid from the treasury of Canada to the wheat board, and that this is to be distributed to the wheat-growing farmers as part of a payment of 8 [DOT] 3 cents a bushel on all the wheat which entered into the five year pool.
I am only going to say in passing that the hon. member for Souris said he was rather surprised that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day referred to a distribution of this amount of money at the rate of 23 cents a bushel over the deliveries of the last two years. I would think that one who has discussed), and talked about, and tried to instruct others with regard to the contents of the United Kingdom-Canadian agreement would have read it sufficiently carefully to have realized that that is the method which is provided for in the agreement for the distribution of the amount of money which is going to be paid as a result of any losses.
In other words it says that any losses which were experienced in the first two years are to be paid them as an addition to the amount of money which otherwise would have been paid in the last two years. And so the Prime Minister quite properly the other day, when he was giving to the house the fact that $65 million was being added to the amount of money which had gone into the pool, said that the $65 million should be figured on a bushelage basis on the last two years of the four year contract.
Now, on September 19, 1945, the Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, then minister of trade and commerce, announced to the House of Commons a plan to set up a five year pool with a ceiling of $1.55 a bushel and a floor of $1 a bushel.
The hon. member for Souris a few moments ago referred to some resolution that was passed the next year, 1946, and made reference to some statement that this government took the 1945 crop into the five year pool. This government did nothing of the kind.
Mr. Speaker, this government in 1945 on the 19th of September had the minister of trade and commerce of that time get up in

Canadian Wheat Board Act the house and announce a five year pool, and the grain of western Canada has been handled under that five year pool. It did not make any difference whether we had ever had a wheat contract with Great Britain or not, the grain would still have been handled under the five year pool. And all the grain sold, no matter whether sold to Great Britain or to whom it was sold, was handled under the five year pool, right from September 19, 1945 -and as a matter of fact we dated the operation back to August 1, 1945.


James Arthur Ross: That is just what I said you did.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, that is not just what my hon. friend said, and if he will read Hansard tomorrow he will find it is not what he said,


James Arthur Ross: It is certainly what I tried to say, anyway.


James Garfield Gardiner: This was action taken on the recommendation of the prices board'-and now that I have all the time I wish to take tonight, because my hon. friend has moved an amendment, which places me in the position of being the first member of the government to speak afterwards, and therefore in the position of being able to speak as long as I like-I can put many things into my speech I had not intended to put in.


James Arthur Ross: You usually do.


James Garfield Gardiner: This was action taken on
the recommendation of the prices board. And my hon. friend will recall that wheat was the one product which, from 1941 to 1945, had no ceiling upon it. And if he recalls the action of members in the house in 1941, he will recall the reasons why there was no ceiling on wheat from 1941 to 1945.
And just to recall the matter to his memory I will remind him of the fact that it was under the leadership of Liberals from western Canada that that position was established in the house at the time, and was supported by the government and Liberal members of the House of Commons.
We had no ceiling on wheat until 1945. The ceiling was established on September 19, 1945, at the time the five year pool was established, and as part of the set-up of the five year pool. The idea was based upon the fact that the international wheat committee was at that time discussing a five year agreement with a floor of one dollar and a ceiling of $1.50 a bushel, No. 1 northern, Fort William. When it was announced that the committee, which was meeting in London, could not agree, the Canadian government proposed a five year pool on practically the

same terms. The amount of wheat handled under this pool has been 1,435,955,510 bushels.
On July 26, 1946, the Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, then minister of trade and commerce, announced to the House of Commons the signing of the four year United Kingdom-Canadian wheat agreement. The United Kingdom-Canadian wheat agreement resulted in the sale to Britain of 631,552,419 bushels of wheat out of the total sale of 1,435,955,510. The receipts from this sale were paid into the five year pool-that is, this sale to Great Britain-and amounted to $1,089,889,013.
The operations of the pool are very simple. The farmers delivered 1,435,955,510 bushels of wheat of all grades to the wheat board. This wheat was sold in three different markets, first the home market, second the British market, and third all other markets in the world.
The amount of money received from each source was paid into the pool conducted by the wheat board. An initial payment of $1.25 a bushel, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, was paid in 1945. Interim payments spread over the entire five years were made from time to time amounting in all to 50 cents per bushel. This makes the total payment, basis No. 1 northern, Fort William, $1.75 per bushel. The total amount paid out to date is $2,489,000,000 on 1,435,955,510 bushels.
The total amount of $2,552,333,047 was obtained from three sources: $448,649,824 was obtained from the home consumers for wheat delivered by the wheat board; $1,089,889,013 was obtained from the United Kingdom for wheat; and $1,013,810,849 was obtained from all other sources for wheat delivered by the wheat board. The Canadian government announced the other day the payment of $65 million on account of the United Kingdom into the pool. This results in there being $2,617,333,047 in the pool for distribution after costs have been deducted to producers of 1,435,955,510 bushels of wheat. The payment per bushel will amount to $1,833. When this payment is made the five year pool will be completed. I think it will be well for hon. members to keep that figure in mind because it will be used on one or two other occasions.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister has said that
that $65 million was paid in on account of the United Kingdom. What authority was there from the United Kingdom to pay in $65 million on their account?


James Garfield Gardiner: We will get along to that in a minute. When the five year pool was announced on September 19, 1945, the war had just ended-as a matter of fact I think

only three days earlier-and we were facing the uncertainties of the future. It was thought by most persons that prices would go down. The international wheat agreement was being advocated to stabilize prices.
Three things happened to change the situation between September 19, 1945, and June 30, 1946. Changes in the value of steel caused breaks in price controls on necessary equipment; wage increases were provided for; the Canadian loan was proposed and discussions of financial assistance to the allied countries from the United States arose. These developments made it evident that there was not likely to be any difficulty about maintaining a floor of $1 under wheat, but that the real possibility of the future was a break through the ceiling of $1.55 a bushel.
It was decided to offer the United Kingdom a four year contract-probably I should say that we started out in the beginning by offering a five year contract, but it very soon became evident that could not be considered and we offered a four year contract-with wheat delivered at $1.55 a bushel for two years, a floor under the last two years in case the unexpected happened and a price for which there was no ceiling to be arranged at least six months before the opening of the 1948 and the 1949 crop years. This contract was signed by the minister of trade and commerce, the Hon. J. A. MacKinnon, and announced by him in the House of Commons on July 26, 1946, and Mr. Strachey in the House of Commons at Westminster on July 25, 1946.


Major James William Coldwell: The minister has said that we offered the United Kingdom a contract. Does that mean that we initiated the agreement?


James Garfield Gardiner: We initiated the discussions. It was agreed that it would be helpful to Britain to have her main food requirements supplied at a price of $1.55 a bushel which was then low and was likely to remain low throughout the first two years. The British were confident that the price would fall below $1.55 in the last two years, and we were just as confident that with United States aid and a Canadian loan the price would go and remain above $1.55. We, therefore, decided to leave the arrangement of price, as is the case in many British food long-time contracts, to be negotiated.
There is nothing new about that. By far the greater number of British contracts for food" has an arrangement in them whereby prices are negotiated for all the years after the first year, and certainly for all the years after the second year. Most of these longtime contracts have a floor and ceiling and
Canadian Wheat Board Act are for a price which may be varied a certain percentage upward or a certain percentage downward. That is done by negotiation. There was nothing new about that. The only thing new about this contract as compared with some of the others was the fact that there was no ceiling placed upon the price to which the wheat could go in the last two years. The reason for that will be evident.


Mr. Blackmore:: The minister has referred to a Canadian loan. Has he in mind the $1 billion loan to Britain?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have in mind the $1,250 million loan to Britain, on which this $65 million is the last payment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Of which this $65 million
is the last part; it was not used as part of the loan.


Mr. Casselman:: It is not coming out of that fund.


James Garfield Gardiner: The result of the 2 (b)
clause in the contract was that the $1.55 was a floor for the first two years, with the question as to what was to be the actual price determined after each crop had been marketed and all the facts were known. The method by which additional payments were to be distributed to farmers was set out in clause 2 (b) of the agreement. I refer again to the fact that it was quite proper for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) the other day to so relate the amount when he was dealing with the $65 million which was being paid in.
There was a discussion in both London and Ottawa as to the meaning of the agreement. I explained it for the government, as I have already done today. I want again to thank the hon. member for Souris for having read some explanations to the house because it is helpful in connection with this discussion. Critics here took the position that the Canadian farmers never would get any more than $1.55 a bushel because there was no way of enforcing the contract. My hon. friends know best what members of the opposition were saying and what critics were saying. The critics all over this country were saying that Britain never would pay more than $1.55 a bushel. They said, "Do you think they are going to pay any more than $1.55?" It was in answer to things like this that the leader of the C.C.F. party and others interrupted and raised some question as to what was being argued and as to what was being said.
In London it was maintained that the British people would be compelled to pay too much for their wheat and in this House of
1062

Canadian Wheat Board Act Commons it was maintained that the Canadian farmer would get too little. The position taken and the opinions held by the British government are best expressed by a question asked by Mr. W. Fletcher in the commons on July 25, 1946, when the agreement was being explained and the answer was given to his question by the Right Hon. John Strachey. As it appears in Hansard the question is as follows:


Mr.  W. Fletcher@: Is it not possible, even now, to see that some form of maximum price in the last two years of the running of the contract is achieved? Otherwise there is an unlimited liability on the government of this country, and the food subsidy will increase with leaps and bounds if the maximum price is too high.
It is all very well for periodicals, newspaper commentators and others to be saying now that nobody thought of that at the time. That, Mr. Speaker, was of the essence of the contract which was drawn up. It was of the essence of the position taken by the government of Canada that, in dealing with this question, if there was going to be a four year contract and if we were going to be delivering at $1.55 a bushel through the first two years, there must be no ceiling on the price for the last two years, and there must be consideration given to all the facts. Among those facts is the difference between the $1.55 price at which wheat was delivered in the first two years and the price that might have been obtained for it at the world price somewhere else.
I say that matter was discussed. It was discussed not only here but it was discussed in the House of Commons of Great Britain, and that question is of the very essence of the matter that was under discussion. What is the answer? It is as follows:


Mr.   Strachey@: No, I do not think that we could possibly alter the terms of the contract now,_
In other words, he says: I do not think that we could put a maximum price on the contract now.
and in any case, I think the fears expressed by the hon. member are quite groundless. I should be most surprised if the world price of wheat was of any such character in those second two years.
Well now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that Mr. Strachey was mistaken, but the facts are there to be seen. It will be noted that every claim that there was lack of consideration for possibilities on our part is denied by Mr. Strachey's answer. The fact that the United Kingdom did not estimate correctly should not justify their refusal to pay.
I was questioned in the house on a number of occasions regarding payments under the "have regard to" clause, and replied as follows in the speech which was quoted a few 
moments ago by the hon. member for Souris, and which was made on August 15, 1946, when this matter was being submitted to the house after the agreement was first made:
We on behalf of the government . . . suggested {during discussions with United Kingdom representatives in June, 1946) that in view of the fact that Great Britain was going to get wheat at some margin below the world price in 1946-47 they should be prepared, no matter whether wheat is below or above $1.25 or even above $1.55 to take into consideration any advantage that they get by obtaining wheat at a low level during these first two years. Without any reservations whatsoever those with whom we were discussing it came right back and said: "That is absolutely fair."
I am not saying that tonight, Mr. Speaker. I said it on August 15, 1946, before the British had a bushel of wheat delivered under this contract, and anyone who did not agree with the statement could have said so at that time.


William Earl Rowe: Which we did.


James Garfield Gardiner: That might have had something to do with what would have happened from there on. When this discussion was at its height Mr. Strachey was invited to Winnipeg and Regina to outline their views as to the meaning of the agreement. He spoke at Winnipeg on February 25, 1947, in part as follows:
In London I often have to meet strong criticism of the Canadian wheat agreement. Our British Conservatives tell me that I have made a very poor bargain. They tell me that the result of the agreement will be that the British people will in the end have to pay millions of pounds more for their wheat than if no agreement had been made.
So I rather wish that I could have had them with me in Ottawa last Friday to listen to the Canadian opposition speakers alleging that 1 had made far too good a bargain, that under the agreement the Canadian farmers would sell their wheat to us for much less than if there had been no agreement ... It is monstrous to suggest that any British government would ever break the terms of a solemn agreement such as this. And in this I am quite sure that I speak for the Conservative opposition in the British House of Commons as well as for my own government. The British Conservatives might not have made the wheat agreement, but once made, they, and all other parties in Britain, are bound by it. In fact the Conservative critics of the agreement whom I face in the House of Commons have complained precisely that we of the labour government have irrevocably bound Britain to this agreement, which in their view will mean paying a far higher price to the Canadian farmers.


William Earl Rowe: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: You said a few moments ago that Mr. Strachey said that the opposition in the British house had said that if no agreement had been made we would have sold wheat for less. I think you must have meant more.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read exactly what is here, and it will be in Hansard tomorrow exactly as it is here.


William Earl Rowe: If there is any doubt about it I should like you to read it over again.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Strachey wrote this.
You will find it is all right.


William Earl Rowe: I should like the minister-


James Garfield Gardiner: What part do you want read?


William Earl Rowe: I should like the minister to read what Mr. Strachey said about selling wheat for less because of the agreement.


James Garfield Gardiner: "So I rather wish that I could have had them with me in Ottawa"- is that what you mean?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: It reads:
So I rather wish that I could have had them with me in Ottawa last Friday to listen to the Canadian opposition speakers alleging that I had made far too good a bargain, that under the agreement the Canadian farmers would sell their wheat to us for much less than if there had been no agreement.


Major James William Coldwell: You left the "than" out.


William Earl Rowe: Then Mr. Strachey did not
understand the opposition.


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh yes, he did.


James Arthur Ross: Did you hear them say that?


James Garfield Gardiner: At that time the opposition speakers were saying exactly what Mr. Strachey says they were saying.


James Arthur Ross: Who said it?


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member for Souris, among others. He has been saying it ever since. He said it no later than tonight.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to quote the page of Hansard where I made such a statement.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, every time the hon. member has been on his feet since this contract was first signed he has argued that the farmers of western Canada were going to lose money by it. If that does not mean they are going to take less for their wheat what does it mean?


James Arthur Ross: That is not what the minister read. That is quite true. I have been arguing that ever since.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is what Mr. Strachey said you were arguing when he was here. Coming down to where I was reading when I was interrupted-


William Earl Rowe: I should like to ask the minister- 80709-69J
Canadian Wheat Board Act


James Garfield Gardiner: Let me make my speech.


William Earl Rowe: I am not going to interrupt again. I do not want to interrupt him because I do not do that.
An. hon. Member: Not much.


William Earl Rowe: No, I do not, but I do wish to say this. Even if Mr. Strachey heard that in the gallery of this chamber, would the minister say he heard the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Ross) or myself or any of the critics in opposition say we would have sold that wheat for less if we had not made that agreement?


James Garfield Gardiner: You still do not have it
right. Read it in Hansard tomorrow.
How then will the actual prices be fixed in the third and fourth years of the agreement? They will be determined by negotiations between the two parties and the agreement laid it down in these precise words that I quote.
And he goes on to quote:
"In determining the prices for the two crop years 1948-49, 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years, and the world prices for wheat in the 1946-47, 1947-48 crop years."
Those are the statements preceding the "have regard" clause. Then Mr. Strachey's statement went on:
Now these words mean neither more nor less than they say. They mean that the fact that we have bought our wheat from you this year below world prices-and that we may do so again next year-will be one of the factors in negotiating the actual prices to be paid in the third and fourth years. I and my government, and I am quite sure that this applies also to the Canadian government, would resist any attempt to add to or to subtract from this clear and definite statement as written into paragraph two subsection (b) of the wheat agreement . . . And, therefore, I personally hope that an international wheat agreement modelled on our Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement does come out of the forthcoming conference in London. But be that as it may, we in Britain and in Canada have already done our part to put our economic relations on a stable basis.
These quotations will indicate that there was no misunderstanding between the Canadian government and the United Kingdom government as to the meaning of this agreement.
Clause 2	(b) in the agreement, better
known as the "have regard to" clause, provided for two discussions of price, one before December 31,	1947, and another before
December 31, 1948. I was in London in September of 1947 on my way back from Geneva, and had the first of those discussions with Mr. Strachey, minister of food. The meeting was held at that time partly because of discussions I had with the international wheat committee while in Geneva. They were anxious to know at once what the terms of the contract were going to be for that

Canadian Wheat Board Act year, because they were discussing what was to be the price under the international contract. The critics who had maintained that when the time came the British would not agree to advance the price above $1.55 a bushel proved to be wrong. No one in London questioned our right to discuss a payment far above $1.55. The price was then around $3.00 a bushel, as the hon. member for Souris has said. We suggested that with the Marshall plan in existence and the Canadian 1946 loan operating to give purchasing power there was little chance of wheat dropping below $2 a bushel over the next two years, which would carry us to July 31, 1949. We stated that instead of asking Britain to pay on the basis of what the price of wheat had been, we were prepared to accept a temporary payment of $2 a bushel, with the final calculation of what we were entitled to left over to the end of the 1948-49 crop year.
This was a definite change in the agreement consented to by both parties, so that when today persons quote the original terms of the agreement and say the $2 was a final settlement of the price for the third year of the contract, they entirely lose sight of the fact that we had an agreement at the time which changed the terms of the original agreement with regard to that matter.


Major James William Coldwell: If the minister will permit me, on July 27, 1949, a meeting was held between the representatives of Canada, the wheat board, and the import cereals organization of Britain. I understand the price was then fixed and settled for 1949; at least the Minister of Trade and Commerce so announced at the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: I will come to all that; it is two years ahead of where I am now, but the facts are not just as they are being stated. The press release setting forth that arrangement was issued by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on October 1, 1947, and reads:
The Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, made the following announcement: "A wheat price of $2.00 per bushel for the third year of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat contract has been agreed upon by the governments of Canada and the United Kingdom.
The price, basis in store Fort William, Port Arthur, Vancouver or Churchill for number one northern wheat, applies to 140 million bushels of wheat to be sold to the United Kingdom in the 1948-49 crop year under the terms of the contract which require that the price for the third year be negotiated and settled not later than December 31, 1947.
In the negotiations which took place during the past month both parties recognized the obligation contained in clause 2 (b) of the agreement, which requires that in settling the price to be paid in the last two years of the agreement period regard should be had to the difference in the first two 
years between the world price and the agreement price. Having in mind the magnitude of the agreement and the long term security which it provides, a precise arithmetical calculation of the difference in price was not suggested. The government is satisfied that the considerations which have prompted the United Kingdom government to offer and the Canadian government to accept a price of $2.00 a bushel for 1948-49, will apply, fully and in the same spirit, in the negotiations for the settlement of the prices to be paid in 1949. The negotiations for this purpose are to take place before the end of 1948."
It will be noted that wheat did not drop below $2 a bushel in any market during that year, hence no adjustment under the "have regard to" clause materialized and the terms of the changed agreement postponed the whole settlement over to December, 1948.
The discussions on the payment to be made on the 1949 crop were carried on in December, 1948, by myself with Right Hon. John Strachey and Sir Stafford Cripps. For the first time the meaning of the "have regard to" clause was questioned by a minister of the government of Great Britain; it was questioned on that occasion by Sir Stafford Cripps. The final news release, hQwever, did not question it. The questioning was done in the discussions we had. We threshed out the matter, and after it was threshed out a press statement was issued. That release, issued on January 20, 1949, read as follows:
The government made the following announcement today:
"Representatives of the United Kingdom and Canadian governments have had discussions on the price to be paid by the United Kingdom for Canadian wheat in 1949-50, the fourth and final year under the United Kingdom-Canadian wheat agreement of 1946. After taking into account all relevant considerations, including but without attempting to reach a final settlement of the United Kingdom obligations under clause 2(b) of the agreement, the two governments have agreed upon a price of $2.00 per bushel.
The two governments have also agreed that their representatives shall meet not later than 31st July, 1950, to settle any obligations of the United Kingdom which may then still be outstanding under clause 2 (b) of the agreement.
The extent to which any such obligations will remain will depend largely upon the actual prices ruling for wheat during 1949-50.
It will be noted that it was agreed that a settlement had not yet been reached under the "have regard to" clause. This was verified in Sir Stafford's press release of February 23, 1949. We did not ask him to make this press release, Mr. Speaker. It was made because of criticisms which were prevalent in his own country, and criticisms which may have gone across from this country. But no one here suggested to him that he should make a press release. He did make one on February 23, 1949, and he made it to the Canadian Press to make sure that the press release would come over here. It did come over here, and

Canadian Wheat Board Act
it was quoted in every daily paper from one end of this country to the other. Here is what he said with regard to wheat:
As regards wheat, we shall continue to depend on Canada for the greater part of our supplies. The four year contract negotiated in 1946 will expire in 1950, and we have recently agreed upon a price of $2 a bushel for the 1949-50 season. We think there is every possibility of the world price falling below the $2 level before the end of the contract, either because of the general improvement in the supply position or as a condition of any international wheat agreement which may be concluded in the near future. If this should be the case, the Canadian farmer will enjoy a favoured position by virtue of the fixed price on which we have now agreed. This might prove to be fair compensation for the earlier years when he was selling us wheat at below the world price. It depends of course upon how far prices actually fall. But in any case we have agreed to discuss this matter further with the Canadian government some time towards the middle of 1950.
Now, I do point out that is the first time that anyone to my knowledge who had been dealing with this question used the word "compensation". It is not our term. It is a term used by the chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain. He said we were entitled to compensation, and the extent to which we would obtain compensation would depend upon the extent to which wheat in 1949-50 dropped below $2 a bushel. We all know now that in so far as most markets were concerned it did not drop below, but I will go into that in a few moments and make allowance for what was said.
My colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), went to London in May, 1950, and took with him the members of the wheat board to discuss deliveries of wheat to the United Kingdom under the international wheat agreement. Before he left it was suggested that he arrange to have the date for final discussion of the "have regard to" clause postponed until all the facts were known. Some of us thought it might be a good thing to have all the facts before us when we discussed this matter finally. It was then acknowledged by everyone that there had been no drop in prices, which was going to create a situation, and we tried to have it arranged that the discussion would take place after July 31, 1950. He reported on return that Sir Stafford insisted on discussing and declaring closed the four year wheat agreement. The Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated he was not prepared to discuss the matter at that time, but agreed to report their attitude back to Ottawa but refused to agree with their view.
In other words, he said the matter had to be discussed back in Ottawa, and no matter what position they took he was not there to agree on that question. He did so report, and the government here unanimously agreed
that if the British refused to acknowledge any obligation under the agreement, any further obligation under the agreement, it was not drawn in such terms as permitted of our enforcing the agreement. I think I am right in saying that even if it had been in legal terms we would not have considered taking the matter to the international court. We have not been in the habit of dealing with matters of this kind, as between ourselves and Great Britain, in any such manner. Even had the terms of the agreement been drawn in different terms from what they were drawn-and I am not admitting that there were any weaknesses in the terms of the agreement-it was fully understood and everyone agreed as to what the meaning was down to a certain time; then there was some disagreement.
Mr. Cold well: Will the minister permit a question? Will he tell us on what date the Minister of Trade and Commerce reported?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am coming right to it. He reported to this house on the same day as he reported to the cabinet.


Major James William Coldwell: June 5?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, not June 5. He did
not report on June 5. What you are talking about on June 5 is a discussion-


Major James William Coldwell: During which he made a
statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: He did not make a statement, he answered some questions which were shot back and forth across the house. If my hon. friend will check the Hansard report of what was said, and if he does not agree that it is not a proper report of what anybody said, then I will discuss it further. It happens to all of us sometimes in these exchanges back and forth that someone says something and someone puts a period in the wrong place.


Mr. Argue:: It does not change the meaning at all.


James Garfield Gardiner: It changes the meaning,
and we will have that a little later.
We just could not reach agreement that there would be a final discussion of the matter at a later date. That was the question under discussion, could we reach an agreement that there would be a discussion at a later date. We just could not reach an agreement that there would be a discussion at a later date. The Minister of Trade and Commerce reported to this house on May 30, 1950, as follows, and this same statement was reported in Great Britain just as the other two statements that had been made after the discussion. I am reading it again, but it is on Hansard now. What I cannot understand is

Canadian Wheat Board Act why opposition members who are trying to be fair do not read the official report that was made in this house, instead of grabbing at sentences here and there that were used when there was an exchange back and forth across the floor of the house just as we had a few minutes ago. When one is trying to be fair, one takes the reports as they are officially made, and here is the official report.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce reported to this house on May 30, 1950, as follows:
In connection with my recent trip to the United Kingdom, I should like to read into the record an agreed statement by the United Kingdom and Canadian governments recording the result of our wheat discussions.
"The Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce held discussions in London with United Kingdom ministers on the subject of the United Kingdom's wheat requirements in the crop year 1950-51 within the framework of the international wheat agreement.
Both governments have now reviewed the results of those talks. They are agreed that the international wheat agreement removes the need for a contract to replace the existing Anglo-Canadian wheat agreement which expires at the end of July.
The United Kingdom government has made it clear that out of its total import requirements in 1950-51, it expects to buy a large proportion in Canada which, quite apart from the special contractual arrangements for the past four years, is, and it is hoped will remain, the traditional source of supply for the United Kingdom. The Canadian government, for its part, is satisfied that Canadian wheat growers will continue to find in the United Kingdom a market for a very substantial part of their exportable wheat."
That is the report. That is the report which was made on both sides of the ocean with regard to these discussions.
It will be noted that it is not stated that any agreement had been reached on the "have regard to" clause.


Hazen Robert Argue: You read the statement of June 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: You read the statements which were made, the official statements. I was asked the other day to put the official statements on the record. I am putting them on the record.


Hazen Robert Argue: I read the official statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend never reads anything right, and if he does he never interprets it properly.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have a good example in the minister.


Gladstone Mansfield Ferrie: The hon. member never put anything right in his life.


James Garfield Gardiner: The government of Canada continued to make representations to the
tMr. Gardiner.]
United Kingdom to the effect that further consideration be given to the opinion widely held in Canada that the terms of the agreement had not been met.
When it was suggested that there was a shortage of dollars, it was pointed out that there was $65 million left in the loan which might be utilized and save dollars for the present. It was suggested both in this house and outside that the government had announced agreement with the British in their contention that they had met their obligations. That was not the case, and in the hope that a removal of that opinion might change the decision the re-opening of the discussions was pressed.
I would like to call attention to the fact that at no time in my speech at Calgary did I say that negotiations had been opened. My speech does not say any such thing. That statement was made again this evening, in spite of the fact that I denied it the last time it was made.
My speech at Calgary was read, and in reading it I read the statement as it is in the speech, and as it had been agreed upon before I left here, namely, that discussions were opening with regard to the whole matter; and those discussions of course were on the question as to whether negotiations could be re-opened after the statement which the British had made in May.
The Prime Minister re-opened the discussions while in Britain in January. After his return we were notified that the United Kingdom government preferred to consider the matter closed.
It was thought wise that because I had carried on the negotiations five years ago and when the payment for the last two years was arranged I should make an effort to have the question re-opened.
While I was in Britain I was informed-I see the press is trying to make a lot out of the fact that the matter was dealt with before I got to Britain, but it was not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Tell us about that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I got to Britain on Sunday. I was in touch with the government immediately. I was in touch with them again on Monday, and I was in touch with them again on Tuesday, and the announcement was not made until Tuesday afternoon.
While I was in Britain I was informed that notwithstanding the views of the Canadian government the United Kingdom government had determined that they would not make further payment, they would not make use of the $65 million remaining in the 1946 loan for the purpose and that it was their intention

Canadian Wheat Board Act
to declare that they did not intend to utilize the remaining part of the loan for any purpose. They so declared on Tuesday, February 20, while I was in London and after the matter had been discussed.
I might say in passing that those people who have such great concern for Britain and for Britain's way of doing things should accept that statement, rather than try to leave the impression that somebody tried to steal a march on somebody as this was being discussed. That did not happen. The British did discuss the question with the government here, as a matter of fact, before I left to go to Britain. I knew all about the discussion here when I left. They discussed it with me when I got over there, and they did indicate to me what they intended to do before they went into the house to do it and secured a seat for me to hear it and they discussed the matter with the whole delegation that was over from here before they went into the house to make the announcement.
This amount of money which would have been provided out of the Canadian treasury, whether loaned to the British or paid without their consent, is being utilized to make the payment amounting to 23 cents a bushel on the last two years of the agreement into the pool.
This makes a total payment under the "have regard to" clause of something between $80 million and $100 million. I think it will be agreed that the world price for 1949-50 in terms of the agreement would be not more than the ceiling price under the international wheat agreement. That was $1.80 a bushel. And the fact that there would be a ceiling price announced was dealt with in the statement of Sir Stafford Cripps in February of 1949. He on that occasion said that the world price might be lower than $2 as a result of either of two things or both, namely, that the price had gone down on the world market, or that the price was set lower under the international agreement. Well, the price set under the international agreement was $1.80 a bushel. The price actually paid by Britain for 140 million bushels of wheat was approximately $2.05 a bushel at Fort William. Had it not been for devaluation, this would have provided an adjustment of $35 million. The least it did provide was $16 million. I am prepared to agree that the settlement of 1949-50 could be held to be one of, at the outside, $35 million.
There is no doubt that was the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer in Great Britain. It was the intention of the British government; it was the intention understood by myself. I explained to the government here when I came back that the international wheat agreement price, whatever it would
be-it was then discussed as a possibility a+ $1.75; it developed to be a price of $1.80- would be interpreted as a world price under the "have regard to" clause in the wheat agreement which we had made in 1946, and since it would be considered as that, and had we not interfered in any way whatsoever with the valuation of the pound as compared with the dollar in the period in between, we would have received a settlement under that "have regard to" clause amounting to $35 million. Therefore I repeat it is not correct to say that the British have not paid anything. It is not correct to say that the British have not acknowledged the terms of the agreement, and they have done nothing at all under it. The only contention that can be put forward is the one which has been put forward by farmers and others, namely, that it is thought that they have not gone far enough. These two amounts, the amount of $65 million, which the Canadian government paid, because they did not think that the settlement was as high as it should be, and the $35 million which is accounted for by the world price in 1949, as compared with the $2.05 which we received, results in the fact that a total amount of $100 million has been paid in order to adjust the position.
I say what I am going to say now, only because it has been published in the press right across the country as having been said by Mr. Wesson himself while he was in Britain that the representation made there was that the British could settle what the farmers considered to be their obligation by paying, or arranging for the payment of, $100 million. I am sure if everyone were satisfied that $100 million has been provided under the terms of the agreement there would be general satisfaction among the farmers of western Canada. All that was necessary to put us all behind such a settlement was the consent of the British government. There never was any question in our mind that this amount of money ought to be paid, and all this talk about disagreement and discussions that have taken place in the government is just so much eyewash. The discussions lasted about half an hour, and took place just a few days ago.


Mr. Harkness:: Do you mean you only
talked half an hour?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, when I have to convince my hon. friend I have to talk much longer.


Douglas Scott Harkness: You will have to keep on
for hours more, at this rate.


James Garfield Gardiner: You will not be around here for me to have to convince after the next election.

Canadian Wheat Board Act


Douglas Scott Harkness: Oh, you said that before the last one.


James Garfield Gardiner: All that was necessary to
put us all behind such a settlement was the consent of the British government. I am sorry I was unable to obtain that consent.
Now, let me review the position. The United Kingdom paid $1,089,889,013 into the pool and received 631,552,419 bushels in wheat and flour. Canada has now announced the payment of $65 million into the pool in lieu of payments we feel the farmer had a right to expect under the terms of the agreement. All others-that is, all other people who bought wheat from the wheat board- paid $1,462,460,673 into the pool and received 803,549,229 bushels in wheat and flour. This means that the wheat delivered +o the United Kingdom earned for the producer an average of $1 -828 a bushel at Fort William. The wheat delivered to all others earned for the producers an average of $1.82 a bushel at Fort William.
The payments made to the farmers when completed will amount to an average of $1.82 a bushel, from the five year pool. Now, I would ask members of this house this question: How much more equitable can a price be made? The British contract, as it has been settled with the payment of $65 million, brings $1.82 into the pool. The sale of wheat to Canadians, and all other people outside the British contract, brought $1.82 a bushel into the pool; and when we are paying it out we are paying on the basis of $1-833 for No. 1 northern. But that does not mean that every farmer will get $1-833.


Percy Ellis Wright: Does that $1.82 include the 160 million bushels sold on the domestic market?


James Garfield Gardiner: Oh yes, it does. Do not get to arguing that too far, or I am afraid you will run into trouble.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am just asking the question.


Mr. Charlton:: Will the minister permit a question?


James Garfield Gardiner: The payments made to
farmers when completed will amount to $1.82 a bushel. This is two cents above the figure which has been written into the international wheat agreement as satisfactory to farmers. And who settled that figure? That figure was settled by the farm representatives from all the exporting countries in the world, meeting with the importers from all the importing countries in the world. And every leader of the farm movement in the Dominion of Canada was present at the time, and they declared that a reasonable ceiling price for

wheat in Canada, not in the past five years, but in the years ahead, was $1.80 a bushel.
This contract, this pool, brought the farmers for the last five years two cents a bushel more than that. What criticism could there be made of it? As a matter of fact there is nothing in connection with that to criticize.
Some parties continue to contend that if wheat had been sold on the open market the farmer would have obtained $330 million more for the wheat sold under the four year United Kingdom-Canadian wheat agreement.
In the first place there has been no open market for Canadian wheat anywhere in the world, outside Great Britain, since 1941. The reason for that is obvious. We were at war during the greater part of that time. I hope the Winnipeg Free Press will not say that I am saying there has been no world market. I have made the statement that I am making now on a number of other occasions, and everyone who has quoted it has said that I have said there was no world market. I have said there was no open market. And there has been no open market.
There has been an embargo against our wheat going into the United States for human consumption since 1941. We are not permitted to ship it there. Before that there was a prohibitive duty of 42 cents a bushel. Since the Marshall plan was set up, if we had been pouring our wheat into European countries and thus using up American dollars, wheat could at any time have been declared surplus. Even though wheat was not declared surplus one country after another which usually obtained its wheat from Canada, but was receiving Marshall aid, considered it wise to take their wheat from the United States. The result of that was that Canada dropped from a position where she supplied 40 per cent of the wheat which entered into international trade to a position where she supplied only 22 per cent of the wheat which entered into international trade. This position would have been much worse, had there been no United Kingdom-Canadian agreement.
In the second place, the class II wheat price which is used as the basis for figuring the loss up to $330 million is the price which the United States government paid American dealers for wheat-much of which they were trading to get their dollars back, and much of which they were giving away-plus the increased value of Canadian wheat because of greater protein content.
There was less than 72 million bushels of this class II wheat sold in 1946-47 and less than 17 million bushels in 1947-48, or less than 89 million bushels peddled over the

world, while 340 million bushels, or lour times as much, was being sold to Great Britain alone. If we had left the British market to Marshall aid and attempted to peddle 430 million bushels of wheat over the world under after-the-war conditions, we would have had to give much of it away or lend the dollars to countries which could never pay it back to get rid of our wheat. The argument is a ridiculous attempt to mislead farmers, and it is used only for that purpose, Mr. Speaker. No such loss would have been experienced if Britain had paid nothing under the "have regard to" clause, or if the Canadian government had not paid the $65 million. It is just possible that the Canadian farmer received more because of the four year contract than he could have received under any other system.
The fact is that the western farmers accepted the wheat board as the agency to sell their wheat. They accepted it as a result of those agitations which I stated at the beginning began back around 1900. They sold 636 million bushels to be delivered over four years to the United Kingdom government. The government of Canada is behind the financing of the wheat board and considers that the farmers were entitled under that agreement to $65 million more than they were paid.
The whole experience is conclusive proof that the farmers were well advised when they asked to have their wheat marketed under the terms of the wheat board act, now before parliament for amendment.
The act may require further amendment from time to time; but in my opinion the farmers of the west have not been convinced that they have lost money under the system of wheat board marketing as compared with any other system. Any hon. member of this house who thinks that he is going to be able to break the impression which western farmers have of the system under which they have been marketing their grains over a period of years by suggesting that there is any other system that ever brought home returns similar to those ought to recall that in no other five year period, either in wartime or in peacetime, did the farmer ever get so much for his wheat as he got for his wheat over the last five years.
One of the brightest young farmers in western Canada said to me the other day, "If the government will guarantee that I will get as much for my wheat on the average over the next five years as I got under this system for the last years, I will sell all my wheat now."


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker -
Canadian Wheat Board Act Mr. Howe: The hon. member who is now on his feet has spoken on this amendment.
I call that to your attention, Mr. Speaker.


James Arthur Ross: I did not want to interrupt the Minister of Agriculture during the last few minutes until he had finished, but he made a statement that those who were talking about these great losses were doing so to mislead the farmers of this country and for political purposes. I happen to be a member who has been making those statements, and I am a farmer. I am supported by the three pools which met in Regina yesterday and the Alberta legislature who passed resolutions about the losses. The minister should withdraw that remark. It is not becoming to this house. I did not want to interrupt him while he was speaking, but I think in fairness he should withdraw that remark at this time.


James Garfield Gardiner: There have been so many people, including my hon. friend, who have been making these statements, that I am quite prepared to say that possibly he did not have that objective in mind. But I am quite sure that the people from whom he got his figures did have that objective in mind.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I have accumulated and worked out my own figures and I think the minister should be fair.


James Garfield Gardiner: I want to congratulate the hon. member upon getting them so close to those that the Free Press and the grain exchange worked out.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, do I have any privilege in this chamber or not?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The remarks of the minister were not directed to the hon. member.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker -


James Arthur Ross: I think this is going pretty far in a chamber such as this and in a democracy such as this.


Percy Ellis Wright: Mr. Speaker,
in discussing this Bill No. 5 I had intended to deal with the amendments themselves, but in view of the direction which the discussion has taken I intend to use what time I have tonight in discussing the five year pool and the British wheat agreement. I quite agree with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) when he said toward the close of his remarks that it is the desire of the wheat producers of western Canada to continue the pool method of marketing grain. I think the minister is quite right when he states that a large percentage of the farmers in western Canada do wish to continue that method of marketing. They want to see their
1070	HOUSE OF
Canadian Wheat Board Act grain pooled over a period of years rather than marketed under the one-year method that is being used at the present time. As a matter of fact, the farmers of western Canada would have liked to have seen another three to five year pool based on the world wheat agreement and to have had their grain marketed in that manner.
There are one or two things I want to deal with particularly, first with regard to the British contract and, second, as to why the western farmers believe that they have something more coming out of the five year pool than the 8-3 cents which the government has announced will be paid. First I should like to deal with what the Minister of Agriculture has said with regard to the settlement of the "have regard to" clause between this government and the British government. The minister was quite right when he stated that as far as the 1948 crop was concerned there was a final agreement reached between the Canadian government and the British government. The Canadian government agreed that the $2 payment on that year's crop would meet the requirements of the "have regard to" clause.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that at all.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is-


James Garfield Gardiner: The public statement does
not say that.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the official statement.


Percy Ellis Wright: That is the official statement
made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in a report published by the external affairs department.


James Garfield Gardiner: I read the only official statement that was ever put out and it does not say that at all.


Percy Ellis Wright: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce said:
That is the "have regard to" clause in the agreement. I suggest that regard was paid in fixing these prices . . . After negotiation the price for the third year was fixed at $2, and after negotiation the price for the fourth year was fixed at $2.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was giving evidence tonight to prove conclusively that that was not the case, no matter who said it or where it was said.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am speaking about the third year of the contract.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am speaking about the third year of the contract too.


Percy Ellis Wright: Here is a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce published by the information division, Department of


External Affairs, on August 12, 1949. The right hon. gentleman is quoted as having stated in regard to the third year:
The terms of the Canada-United Kingdom wheat agreement for 1948-49 have been fully carried out . . . Final transactions to complete the third year of the agreement were concluded on July 27 between the Canadian wheat board and the imported cereals division of the United Kingdom ministry of food.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is an entirely different matter; that is a matter of distributing the funds that were with the wheat board at that time.


Percy Ellis Wright: I will ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if that is not the fact.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, it is not the fact. I put the facts on the record tonight.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not asking the minister. The minister is not in charge of this department although he seems to have a lot to say about it.


James Garfield Gardiner: On that question-


Percy Ellis Wright: I am asking


James Garfield Gardiner: I was the man who negotiated the arrangement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Melfort has the floor.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce if that statement published under his name in this government publication was not correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if it was under my name because I do not think I was Minister of Trade and Commerce at the time the statement was issued. If my hon. friend will send it across to me so I can see what it is all about I will be able to answer it a little later.


Percy Ellis Wright: We will get the exact copy and have it sent to the minister. I have just a quotation from it. The Minister of Agriculture stated that the official statement with regard to the 1949 crop was made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on May 30, and he proceeded to read that statement. The statement that he read had no reference at all to the 1949 crop. The minister was speaking with respect to sales of wheat from this country to the United Kingdom in the 1950-51 crop year.


James Garfield Gardiner: Exactly what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Percy Ellis Wright: Just a minute.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read my speech tomorrow and you will understand it.


Percy Ellis Wright: On June 5, 1950, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), having made no statement with regard to the five year pool, was questioned in the house about it to see if we could not get some information as to whether a settlement had been reached concerning the "have regard to" clause when he was in Great Britain in the latter part of May. On questioning he made it quite definite. There is no doubt about the minister's words. At page 3221 of Hansard for June 5, 1950, he stated:
The "have regard to" clause reads as follows:
"The actual price to be paid for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1948-49 shall be negotiated and settled between the United Kingdom and the government of Canada not later than the 31st December, 1947, and prices for wheat to be bought and sold within the crop year 1949-50 shall be negotiated and settled not later than the 31st December, 1948. In determining the prices of these two crop years, 1948-49 and 1949-50, the United Kingdom government will have regard to any difference between the prices paid under this agreement in the 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years and the world prices for wheat in 1946-47 and 1947-48 crop years."
The minister goes on to say:
That is the "have regard to" clause in the agreement. I suggest that regard was paid in fixing these prices.
That is the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking in the house. He continues:
The price for the first two years of the agreement was $1.55. After negotiation the price for the third year was fixed at $2, and after negotiation the price for the fourth year was fixed at $2. What does my hon, friend read out of the agreement beyond the fact that the price for the last two years would be settled having regard to world prices in the first two years?
Later on he continues as follows:
The matter of the "have regard to" clause was discussed in great detail during our sessions with Sir Stafford Cripps and other ministers of the United Kingdom government. The whole situation was reviewed. The United Kingdom is just as positive as I have been in my statements in the house as to what the world price of wheat really was in those periods. My hon. friend said the world price was the price in a local market to which Canadian grain is not permitted access. I wonder what the world price would have been if we had been able to ship our Canadian grain to the Chicago market, which he says is the great criterion for world prices. We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
That is pretty positive. I am sending to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the statement that appeared in the government publication. It is quite clear from what I
Canadian Wheat Board Act have read that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who handles the department and who was doing the negotiating, was satisfied that a final settlement had been reached,


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, I wish to make it perfectly clear that I went to London to settle the marketing conditions of the 1950 crop. I made it very clear to the people in London that I was not authorized and was not there for the purpose of discussing the five year pool. I made it clear that all I could do was to state our views, listen to their representations and take a message back to my colleagues. That is exactly what I did.


Percy Ellis Wright: Then I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce why he made this statement in the house. I ask him why he made the statement that the government was satisfied that the British government had met their commitments under this agreement. I do not think it was a good settlement. I think that the British government did owe us something so far as the "have regard to" clause is concerned. I have just taken the Minister of Trade and Commerce's own words that, so far as he was concerned, the British government had fulfilled their obligations under the "have regard to" clause. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce now denies that-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I deny nothing. Make your
own speech. I stated my position, that any decision was made in Ottawa and not in London. I was simply the messenger. I brought back Sir Stafford Cripps' positive statement that the British government would not pay more in settlement of the contract, and any decision was made in Ottawa.


Percy Ellis Wright: All I can do is read the
minister's statement. He said:
We went over the agreement while in London. We asked the United Kingdom government what further settlement it is to make on account of the "have regard to" clause. The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they had fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. We agreed on behalf of Canada that considering all the circumstances that was the case.
One of the circumstances was the fact- and the minister stated it after he came back -that Great Britain was prepared to purchase a greater amount of wheat during 1950 than she would otherwise have done. That was one of the ways in which the British government was having regard to the fact that they had not made full payment under this clause, that in purchasing a larger amount of wheat than they had normally

Canadian Wheat Board Act purchased from the Canadian, market in the ten years before the war they were in part fulfilling their obligation.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Percy Ellis Wright: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Are you sure you are reading the sentence as it is in the Hansard that you have, or is there a period in>
the middle of the sentence? Are you reading the sentence correctly?


Percy Ellis Wright: It does not make a particle
of difference to the meaning.


James Garfield Gardiner: It makes all the difference in the world.


Percy Ellis Wright: Not a particle.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are not reading what
is in the book.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am reading exactly what is in the book.


An hon. Member:: Read it again.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not going to bother reading it again. You can put a period or a comma anywhere you like and it will not make any difference.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I am entitled to keep the record straight so far as I am concerned. I may say that the discussions about the disposal of the 1950 crop took place before there was any mention of the five year pool. That matter was discussed and settled and then discussions were opened on the five year pool, against our wishes really. I made it clear at the outset I had no authority to discuss or settle. I told those present that we looked to the minister who negotiated the agreement in the first place to negotiate the settlement, and that all I could do was carry back a report of the discussions. Nevertheless when the discussions continued I got a very positive statement from the chancellor of the exchequer, and there were other ministers present. I had to take their views back to my colleagues as the position of the United Kingdom government. I reported that position to them. The decision, if there was any decision, was made after I returned.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask the minister a question, or both ministers a question? Are there any initialled memoranda or letters which have a bearing upon these circumstances? If so, I think they should be produced in order that we may know exactly what the situation is.


James Garfield Gardiner: In answer to what my hon. friend has said, this is one of the matters which took me over to Great Britain. I have


in my hand a copy of the daily edition of Hansard for June 5, 1950. I repeat that what was read a few moments ago is not what was in the daily edition of Hansard for that date. What is contained therein reads as follows:
The United Kingdom government took a very strong position that they have fulfilled all obligations under that clause, and so far as the United Kingdom was concerned.
The sentence ends there. Then there is another sentence which goes on.


Major James William Coldwell: Read the next sentence.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friends have no right to be quoting any statement different from the way it was put down at the time.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, on a matter of
privilege, I think an hon. member is entitled to quote from revised Hansard, believing that it is the final revision and therefore correct. It is not the fault of the hon. member if the minister again corrects revised Hansard. We have always understood that revised Hansard was the last word.


James Garfield Gardiner: I sat in the house and listened to the statement being made, and I was quite satisfied that the minister stated the position just as it had been reported. When I went over to Britain this was quoted to me. I handed the copy of unrevised Hansard I have in my hand to the minister, and he read it.


William Earl Rowe: Is that revised Hansard?


James Garfield Gardiner: It is unrevised. I handed it to the minister just as it was put down here the night the statement was made. He read it; one of the other ministers present asked to see it, and he turned to me and asked, "What were they doing in the house when that statement was made?" I replied that obviously they were in committee of the whole. Then I asked them if they made statements of policy over there while they were being questioned back and forth across the floor of the house, and they said of course not.


Percy Ellis Wright: Now, Mr. Chairman-


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend asked for a statement, and he is getting it. Never again, during all the time I was there, did they quote this to me as being the opinion of the Canadian government.


Major James William Coldwell: Revised Hansard is the last revision. Who revises unrevised Hansard except the minister or his office? No one.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is all very well for my hon. friend to say.


Percy Ellis Wright: Those were the statements made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce who is in charge of this

Canadian Wheat Board Act
department, according to revised Hansard; and I think we as members are entitled to quote them. I believe members of the house and the people of Canada are entitled to believe what they read in revised Hansard, and not have ministers come back six months later and begin to revise it again under circumstances which make it pretty obvious that they are not satisfied with what they said before.
The other point I want to deal with in respect to this agreement is whether the farmers in western Canada are entitled to more than 8-3 cents per bushel. We hear a great deal of comment around this building that the western farmers are asking for a subsidy; that this $65 million is just a handout to the west. We see articles in the press saying that the west has again gouged the government of Canada out of a further $65 million. I want to point out some of the reasons why we in western Canada believe we are entitled to this money.
What were the conditions at the time the British agreement was entered into? You will remember that was back in 1945 and the early part of 1946, just at the time price controls were being removed in Canada. There was a discussion in this house as to whether or not the British agreement was satisfactory; certain questions were asked and certain statements were made in this house in reply. The Minister of Agriculture himself made certain statements, and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked certain questions with respect to what would happen if the cost of the things the farmer had to use in the production of his crop were to increase. Let me quote from page 4825 of Hansard for August 15, 1946. At that time the house was discussing the floor price legislation and this agreement.
If what the minister says is correct and parity over the period of the agreement should be in the neighbourhood of $1.40 or $1.35, or whatever it may be, of course that would be a different story, but the point I think I made quite clearly was that if costs of production and costs of living continue to rise, a compensatory adjustment should be made out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
That was the statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and later on the Minister of Agriculture had this to say:
We shall not insist on the matter of time, and anyway we are in committee. What I want to point out is that under the floor price measure-and that is not the proper name, but it will do-we stated to the house that $200 million was being provided for the purpose of taking care of any adjustments in connection with what might be known as parity on other farm products. At the same time we stated to the house that similar arrangements would be made if necessary, through the wheat board, in connection with grain. I just want to point out that provision is made in another way.
In other words the minister gave this house the assurance that should the cost of production of wheat continue to rise, some compensatory adjustment would be made by this government-not by the British government but this government-to take care of that increased cost. What has taken place in the meantime? According to Professor McDougall of Queen's university, taking the purchasing value of the wheat dollar from 1935 to 1939 as $1, from 1904 to 1914 the value of that dollar in terms of wheat was $1.28. In 1947-48 it was 97 cents; in 1949-50 it was 80 cents. Today it is only 71 cents. In other words the cost of the things the farmer has to buy to produce his crop has increased by over 30 per cent. Therefore the farmer is entitled to some compensation for that increased cost of production which this government allowed to take place. Not only that, but look at the cost of living index. It has jumped from approximately 121 in 1946 to 175-2 today, which means that the value of the 8-3 cents payment we are getting is about 5 cents as compared to the purchasing power in 1946.
These are facts you cannot get away from. It is not a case of the western farmer trying to get something to which he is not entitled. Through all their organizations the western producers have stated that they believe they are entitled to from 15 to 25 cents by way of final payment, and we in this group believe that also. We believe that because of the policies this government followed in reducing the value of the Canadian dollar by allowing inflation in this country, in view of the policies which it followed, and which have caused increases in the cost of production, the government owes the western farmer a reasonable payment on this five year pool. They have failed to get a further settlement from the British government, but that does not remove their responsibility to the farmers in western Canada. I am therefore going to move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), a subamendment to the amendment moved by the member for Souris (Mr. Ross), as follows:
That the amendment be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the words "final settlement of the five-year wheat pool," and substituting therefor the following words:	It being the opinion
of this house that consideration should be given to a final payment of twenty-five cents per bushel.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, if I may clear up a point, all this states is that the Canadian wheat board had met with the import cereal division of the United Kingdom ministry of food, that is the two sets of officials had met and completed arrangements which provided for the final deliveries on the crop of the preceding year. All this says is that owing

Canadian Wheat Board Act to a bountiful harvest they have been able to carry out their agreement in full and on time.


Major James William Coldwell: Does it not say that the agreement has been completed for that year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It says that so far as the officials are concerned it has. It is only a meeting of officials. It had nothing to do with any policy matter. We had delivered the wheat as we agreed to do.


Major James William Coldwell: That is the final settlement for that year, as the Minister of Agriculture stated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: On the agreed basis; we delivered the wheat we had agreed to deliver and they paid the money they agreed to pay.


Percy Ellis Wright: May I call it eleven o'clock and adjourn the debate?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. McCulloch.

Alphonse Fournier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will proceed with the third reading of Bill No. 77, an act respecting the department of defence production. Then we will continue with this Bill No. 5. If we complete that we shall take Bill No. 130, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. If we have time left we will discuss the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Finance concerning foreign exchange control.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Friday, March 9, 1951